Cold Shoulder

Dean Yeager: "You seem to regard science as some type of dodge, or hustle. Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy, and your conclusions are highly questionable. You are a poor scientist, Doctor Venkman."

Dr Peter Venkman: "I see."

--Ghostbusters

A bunch of emails have surfaced suggesting that scientists 'fudged' data and manipulated peer review processes to bias conclusions in favor of the man-made global warming thesis.

That scientific processes are biased to favor a particular viewpoint should not be surprising. Kuhn's (1962) seminal work demonstrated that science is a social process and subject to influence.

I've been involved in academic research and publication for over 10 yrs now, and points where bias and influence can make their way into the process are straightforward to observe. Selective data collection, opinionated reviewers, and grants/funding with an 'interest' exemplify areas where subjectivity and manipulation can enter the process.

Because many people tend to view 'science' as objective and unbiased, they can be hoodwinked by entities seeking to legitimize projects and programs in the name of science. Politicians trot out studies and scientific 'experts' who favor a particular point of view under the pretense that these views are fact.

Were government not in the wealth re-distribution business, then there would be little need for such public display. Moreover, if individuals quit outsourcing their brains to so-called experts and began thinking more for themselves (early blog post example related to global warming here), then the power of reason and critical thinking would reduce dependence on a process subject to human influence and bias.

Think!

Reference

Kuhn, T.L. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.