Restoring Gold Standard Science

[GregLocock]

TACO has introduced an EO whose aim is “restoring gold standard science”. It means it must be reproducible; transparent; open about error and uncertainty; collaborative and interdisciplinary; sceptical of its findings and assumptions; falsifiable; subject to unbiased peer-review; (as) accepting of negative results as positive outcomes and without conflicts of interest. Highly unlikely and overly precautionary assumptions and scenarios should only be relied upon in agency decision-making where required by law or otherwise relevant to an agency’s action. Any outside ‘contractor’ working for a federal agency will also be obliged to follow the new rules as though they were directly employed.

I've crossed out the bit that is unnecessary and improved the grammar.

It'll be interesting to see how the climate establishment responds, I've bolded the bits that shoot down most of what passes for climate science. No more RCP 8.5 nonsense for a start.

Here ya go, WE DEMAND THE GRAVY TRAIN SHOULD CONTINUE

 

[BridgeSmith]

How ironic that the writer rails against "state-dictated science", when it's so obvious that that's what we've had for many decades.

At least in the realm of vaccines, the interference of government in science is becoming more obvious every day. Just as an example, the writer decries "Calls to 'revisit' decades of work that establish vaccine safety beyond a shadow of a doubt."

Hopefully, we'll see progress in the openness of climate science soon.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

I was not understanding the following part of it.

(vi) structured for falsifiability of hypotheses;

So, I looked it up and found this:

"Structured for falsifiability of hypotheses" is a criterion in the philosophy of science that states a theory is genuinely scientific only if it is possible in principle to establish that it is false. This concept is associated with Karl Popper's theory of falsification.

i.e. Global warming is going to cause x, y, and z withing the next 10 years..... Ten years go by and x, y and z do NOT happen. Ergo, the theory is basically false....

 

[GregLocock]

Yup climate science since 1990 fails Popper's definition. Remember that the IPCC wasn't set up to 'solve' global warming, it was explicitly tasked with justifying transfers of wealth from rich countries to poor countries.

(EDENHOFER): Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.
(NZZ AM SONNTAG): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.
(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.