"Now do climate theory"

 Source:

https://climatediscussionnexus.com/2021/04/14/now-do-climate-theory/

"National Geographic “SCIENCE executive editor” Victoria Jaggard gushes that “One of the things I love about particle physics is how much scientists really want to find cracks in some of their most widely accepted theories.”

Funny how one thing her magazine, and she personally, doesn’t hate about climate science is how little scientists really want to find cracks in some of their cherished theories.

In the piece Ms. Jaggard, who does at least have a “B.A. in Science Writing/Journalism” and with a “Minor in Earth & Environmental Science”, then fumbles the philosophy of science rather badly.

She says “In most fields, having observations match your theory is a big win.

But for particle physicists, finding a result that does not match predictions is when things really get interesting.”

In fact all scientists like having observations match their theory.

... the way to test a theory is less to look for confirmatory evidence and find it than to look for contrary facts and not find them.

More broadly, in particle physics and almost anywhere else in science, the exciting bit is finding flaws in the accepted wisdom.

As we noted in February, “The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not ‘Eureka!’ (I found it!) but ‘That’s funny …’”.

It’s that moment that opens the door to new and better theories and, indeed, the path to scientific advancement and glory.

As the New York Times noted about the same story, “Experiments with particles known as muons suggest that there are forms of matter and energy vital to the nature and evolution of the cosmos that are not yet known to science.”

And the excitement was palpable:

... Apparently “physicists say” this discovery “could eventually lead to breakthroughs more dramatic than the heralded discovery in 2012 of the Higgs boson, a particle that imbues other particles with mass.”

As Willis Eschenbach then tweeted, “You mean the ‘consensus’ is wrong?

But, climate!”

Which might seem a slightly sour note but it is warranted.

Because it only seems to be in climate science (or the Soviet Academy of Sciences) that you’d better toe the line if you want money, praise and indeed survival.

And it is surely strange that even those who purport to love the scientific spirit in all other areas aren’t bothered by its absence among the scientific, journalistic and political guardians of orthodoxy in this one."