Restoring the Scientific Method

Sixth International Conference on Climate Change

Occurred in Washington, DC on June 30 – July 1, 2011

Marriott Wardman Park, 2660 Woodley Road, Washington DC.

Dozens of think tank co-sponsors and hundreds of scientists will gather in an effort to “restore the scientific method” to its rightful place in the debate over the causes, consequences, and policy implications of climate change.

The theme of the conference, “Restoring the Scientific Method,” acknowledges the fact that claims of scientific certainty and predictions of climate catastrophes are based on “post-normal science,” which substitutes claims of consensus for the scientific method. This choice has had terrible consequences for science and society. Abandoning the scientific method led to the “Climategate” scandal and the errors and abuses of peer review by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The scientists speaking at this conference, and the hundreds more who are expected to attend, are committed to restoring the scientific method. This means abandoning the failed hypothesis of man-made climate change, and using real science and sound economics to improve our understanding of the planet’s ever-changing climate.

Original Conference Website

This conference has ended, but recordings are now available Click Here

The Heartland website has been completely re-organised, and there is now a whole section set aside for the former functions of …. “Environment and Climate News” ….  Now called the “Environment Suite“, which has many new sections. International Climate Change Conference videos for previous years can be seen, in their own websites. Please do read Heartland’s History of ICCC – Click Here. This is a vast improvement on previous efforts. Congratulations are in order to Joe Bast, Jay Lehr, James Taylor, and their team.  

Their previous “Global Warming Playlist” can be seen at this URL :

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A66F80C8740572EC

From such small “acorns”, mighty “oaks” can still be grown.

 -==::==-

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Restoring the Scientific Method

  1. Neil Craig says:

    Restoring the scientific method is not simply about “global warming”. The Linear No Threshold theory that radiation is damaging no matter how low a level, has been vital to the anti-nuclear power campaign. By preventing us having inexpensive nuclear electricity it has orobably halved our growth and led to 25,000 pensioner deaths from cold annually.

    Difficult then to believe that not only has there never been any actual evidence for the theory it is against all experience in other fields of poisons and that there is an immense amount of evidence proving the opposite, known as hormesis, that, except at very high levels, radiation is beneficial to health. There are other areas in which scare stories and the “precautionary principle” have suppressed real science.

    One way to restore it would be this proposal by Sean O’Brien of a Scientific Integrity Act. http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2010/11/constitutional-amendments-12-scientific.html

    • Whilst is may seem to be a good idea to legislate about scientific integrity, the proposal by Sean O’Brien is in my view too arbitrary or perhaps even whimsical. The detail is excruciating, and one wonders what Mr. O’Brien’s criteria were. I mean why four levels, why not five or even three?

      It is my opinion that this approach would only lead to more confusion and arguments that a particular author had published a theory which was classed by O’Brien as level 2, and the author then argues that it should be level 3. Then some other author might say that in fact it was only level 1. Someone else may think there should be a sub-class of perhaps 2+ or 3- and so on. There are too many shades of grey here, and in the real world, to classify science in such a manner, and to legislate in such a fashion. These are issues best left to critical examination in a genuine evidential peer review process.

      It could be better to have a classification of 3 based upon the Rumsfeldian Dialectic. . . .

      “There are known-knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known-unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know, we don’t know. But there are also unknown-unknowns. There are things we do not know, we don’t know…. So that is really only the known-knowns, and the known-unknowns. And each year, we discover a few more of those unknown-unknowns. It sounds like a riddle. It isn’t a riddle. It is a very serious, important matter. ”

      “There’s another way to phrase that and that is; that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is basically saying the same thing in a different way. Simply because you do not have evidence that something exists does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn’t exist. And yet almost always, when we make our threat assessments, when we look at the world, we end up basing it on the first two pieces of that puzzle, rather than all three. ” – Donald Rumsfeld

      [ Press Conference, NATO Headquarters, Belgium, June 6th 2002 ]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s