Science proves… Science says… Research shows…
Every week, the above phrases are employed by TV personalities, newspaper journalists, coworkers, friends, and family. When these phrases are uttered, certain ideas get elevated above the fray, enthroned on a pedestal.
Science has spoken. Who are you to be arguing with SCIENCE?
The problem, of course, is that scientific research is conducted by human beings. Who not only make mistakes, but are susceptible to peer pressure, groupthink, intellectual fads, and noble cause corruption.
The fallibility of ‘science’ is splendidly illustrated by a paper published last week in Nature. It concludes that not one, not two, but eight previously published studies about how climate change affects the behavior of coral reef fish are unsound.
When the second team of researchers conducted the same experiments, the results were startlingly different. Here’s a quote from the abstract in Nature:
we comprehensively and transparently show that…ocean acidification levels have negligible effects on important behaviours of coral reef fishes…we additionally show that …[results] that have been reported in several previous studies are highly improbable. [bold added]
Extending back to 2010, many of these studies were highly publicized at the time they appeared. Physicist Peter Ridd points out they were all produced by Australia’s James Cook University. Ridd, remember, was fired by James Cook after raising concerns about research quality.
Responsibility appears to lie squarely with ecologist Philip Mundy, who investigates “the effects of climate change on reef fish populations” via “a range of laboratory and field-based experiments.”
Thanks to Mundy’s team, a good chunk of what the world thinks it knows about coral reef fish and climate change has now been shown to be dead wrong.
Zero out of eight. How many other James Cook research papers should we be taking seriously?
Read more at Big Pic News
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle shows the observer is not separate from the observed reality. Thus it is impossible for a human being to act as impartial observer in scientific experiments. This means the very expectations and position of the experimenter and observer influences the nature of what is observed. “Science”is now elevated by many scientists, the media, big money and politicians as a new “religious” insight, not to be questioned, or you are a heretic.
Science has traditionally been trusted. Due to science hand held cell phones have more computing power than all of the computers in the world in the 1950’s. This why the con men running the climate change fraud always refer to science as if it is the word of God. What they leave out is that the science referenced is fraudulent. In the case of fish behavior, science by those supporting the climate change cause was 100% wrong. This is consistence with the predictions of the climate change movement which also has been a 100% wrong.