The scientific and
medical community
is deeply divided over
the nature of COVID-19,
and the best public
policies in reaction to it.
That's expected.
It's a new disease.
The first cycle
is still in progress.
There's no cure now,
and maybe never.
There's no vaccine now,
and maybe never.
No past coronavirus
strain has a vaccine.
A strong seasonal trend
is assumed, based on
our experience with
other viruses, but
not guaranteed.
But fast "answers"
were demanded,
by political leaders.
hoping to save lives.
Unfortunatly, science
is very bad at fast
answers -- we will
get fast answers, but
they're usually wrong !
Scientific models
make their predictions
based on assumptions.
COVID 19 is too new
to have learned much
from experience with it.
Up to four of five
infected people
seem to have mild,
or no symptoms.
No symptoms sounds
like great news, until
a person who has no
symptoms spreads
the disease to
someone else
who will have
symptoms.
The coronavirus crisis's
many wrong predictions
prompted unprecedented
government policies.
Never before have
so many healthy people
been quarantined !
The partial economic
shutdown ( "instant
recession" ) was also
unprecedented.
A few cities did have
hospital overcrowding,
and needed to "flatten
the infection curve".
But most U.S. counties
actually had few, or no,
COVID-19 deaths,
yet operated under the
same "one size fits all"
orders from the state
governors.
For climate change, the
very popular assumption
is that CO2 levels control
the global average
temperature ... but
that assumption leads
to grossly inaccurate
climate predictions.
Yet climate model
predictions are
still used to create
very expensive
public policies !
And the most negative
climate predictions
get the most attention
in the mass media.
In climate science,
actual global
warming is later
measured to be
one third to one half
of the climate model
predictions.
That sounds like
the predictions
were "in the ballpark",
but one degree C.
of global warming in a
century is harmless,
while three degrees C.
warming in a century
could be a concern.
With global warming,
at least we have had
experience with
mild, intermittent
global warming
for 325 years,
since the 1690s.
And thousands of
scientific experiments,
over many decades,
almost always show
that higher CO2 levels
have the positive effect
of accelerating green
plant growth.
The way that most
science research
is conducted,
and published,
has serious
problems.
That has been true
for many decades
in climate science,
where consensus
views are easy to
get published, while
contrary conclusions
are not.
And only half of
scientific studies
can be replicated
-- that is a huge
research crisis !
In the past three
decades, most climate
science "studies"
have degenerated
into wild guess predictions
of the future climate that
never come true.
Scaremongering,
not real science/
An article
in the journal
Nature, by
Professor
Daniël Lakens,
argues for better
quality-control of
scientific research.
Scientists must
find good ways
to build criticism
into their research
process, rather than
getting "pal reviews"
just before publication.
Using skeptics
to prove the
methods and
conclusions
wrong, DURING
the research,
is real science,
but is now rarely
done.
Most checking
done today are
"peer-reviews"
before publication.
A ‘red team’ approach
in science would include
criticism DURING
each step of the
research process.
A red team, or
"devil’s advocate",
would poke holes
in the logic, and
find errors in
the research,
BEFORE a study
is completed.
A red team
would challenge
the assumptions,
with the goal
of improving
the research.
Software companies,
for one example,
use ‘white-hat hackers’
to identify security flaws
BEFORE they're found and
exploited by real hackers.
Scientists doing
research studies
should engage
with red teams
at each phase of
a research project,
and then refute,
their challenges,
or incorporate
their criticism.
A scientific claim
becomes more
reliable if it is
challenged,
and criticized,
DURING
the research
process.
Skepticism is the most
important trait of a real
scientist !
In climate science,
however, skepticism
is usually attacked
with ridicule and
character attacks,
often followed by
the most ridiculous
claim anyone can make
about real science --
"The science is settled."
Skepticism about
findings that
DON'T match
the consensus
is too common today.
Skepticism should be
applied to ALL research
conclusions, especially
consensus conclusions !
Your logical reaction
to the common phrase
"Scientists say ... ",
should be skepticism.
With government
funded climate science,
I sometimes burst out
laughing, after reading
the latest "it's worse than
we previously thought"
climate change "study".
Perhaps that's too much
skepticism, but I've been
reading scary, always
wrong, "consensus"
climate predictions
since 1997 !