Judith Curry abandons the science ship

[Trakar]

As the consensus arguments from the warmibles disappear rapidly down the toilet, there is something sadly ironic hearing them drowning in their own groupthink and/or never-eventuating alarmist predictions.

Every prediction made for this time period has proven accurate, or underestimated the effects and impacts realized.

"Influences of Mankind on Climate"(1979) - http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/...&page=63&epage=63&send=Send+PDF&filetype=.pdf

"West AntarctIc Ice sheet and CO2 greenhouse effect: a threat of disaster"(1978) - http://tintin.colorado.edu/CVEN5718/Readings/Mercer_Nature_1978.pdf

"Global Air Pollution and Climate Change"(1978) - http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=4071874

"Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?"(1975) - http://books.google.com/books?hl=en...rink of a Pronounced Global Warming?"&f=false

just a representative sampling many more available upon request.

 

[bit_pattern]

A healthy scientific endeavor is composed of a majority attempting to falsify or refine small details of the dominant model (and hence improve it), and a smaller group pursuing more hypothetical ideas or trying to falsify basic features of the dominant model. These groups should interact continuously and vigorously, and the larger group should recognize the intrinsic value of the smaller one. That's exactly how science plays out in areas that aren't polluted by political pressure (take astronomy, for example), but climate science seems to have contracted too far behind its shell. Understandably so, but it's not optimal.

Sure thing. But then why isn't Dr. Curry publishing in scientific journals and not championing some vague notion of "citizen science" where apparently making criticisms from the safety of a blog is somehow equal to publishing original research in peer reviewed journals? I'm pretty sure that when original research IS published it IS debated vigorously. The problem is that these people are playing to popular opinion, no the opinion of their peers and yet they want to be treated as equals. I'm certainly no philosopher of science but I'm pretty sure you never see that in less politicised fields, like the astronomy you mention

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Maybe if what you quoted is all that you read of my post. The irony of you using the sort of underhandedly dishonest tactics, like cherry picking quotes to twist them into saying something they don't, that are the hallmark of conspiracy theorists of all ilks is duly noted. It's the perfect caricature of a denier, it could almost be sublime satire - Poe's Law in motion - and the fact that it's NOT makes it even funnier somehow.

Is that a "no"?

Groupthink symptom #4 remains alive and well.

 

[bit_pattern]

Is that a "no"?

No. It really is meaningless.

Groupthink symptom #4 remains alive and well.

Ironies abound - warmibles, warmers, warmer porn etc. But your gross hypocrisy aside, I certainly don't think it is "groupthink" to laugh at conspiracy theorists and people who cling to outdated, long ago disproved notions. I laugh at creationists, twoofers and deniers equally, as they all have about as much intellectual credence as each other. In science, unless you are publishing research that actually challenges the orthodoxy then you aren't participating in a debate between equals. Most of the other "side" are just a hackneyed political cheer-squad who in no way come even close to having a coherent alternative model that challenges the orthodoxy, they just make a lot of noise in the media and think that warrants being taken seriously. It doesn't and it isn't an exercise in groupthink to point that out. And the fact that all you are capable of is throwing around the same, tired and baseless cliche in lieu of any real argument suggests very strongly that you are a victim of groupthink, not those that you throw the accusation at with nausea inducing predictability.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

No. It really is meaningless.

So, you can't prove it.
Why don't you just say so and be done with it.

Ironies abound - warmibles, warmers, warmer porn etc. But your gross hypocrisy aside, I certainly don't think it is "groupthink" to laugh at conspiracy theorists and people who cling to outdated, long ago disproved notions. I laugh at creationists, twoofers and deniers equally, as they all have about as much intellectual credence as each other. In science, unless you are publishing research that actually challenges the orthodoxy then you aren't participating in a debate between equals. Most of the other "side" are just a hackneyed political cheer-squad who in no way come even close to having a coherent alternative model that challenges the orthodoxy, they just make a lot of noise in the media and think that warrants being taken seriously. It doesn't and it isn't an exercise in groupthink to point that out. And the fact that all you are capable of is throwing around the same, tired and baseless cliche in lieu of any real argument suggests very strongly that you are a victim of groupthink, not those that you throw the accusation at with nausea inducing predictability.

(sigh).. such a lot of words to say so very little.

Judith Curry brought up the GROUPTHINK word this time.

You, Macdoc et al just pour petrol on her fire by the continued use of GROUPTHINK SYMPTOM #4. Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.

Yet you point the irony finger at others.
Hilarious.

 

[bit_pattern]

So, you can't prove it.
Why don't you just say so and be done with it.

It all ready has been proved, by me an d others, you refusing to acknowledge the evidence doesn't make it any less so. It just makes you a particularly irritating person to argue with. I bet you're real hoot at dinner parties..

(sigh).. such a lot of words to say so very little.

Judith Curry brought up the GROUPTHINK word this time.

You, Macdoc et al just pour petrol on her fire by the continued use of GROUPTHINK SYMPTOM #4. Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.

Yet you point the irony finger at others.
Hilarious.

Wake me when Dr. Curry publishes some original research that either disproves some aspect of the orthodoxy, or, even better, comes up with a better alternative model to explain the observations in a more coherent way than the current models. Until then, her politically hackneyed accusations of groupthink are a laughable reaction to the pwning she took at RC after publicly humiliating herself. Hell hath no fury like a womans ego scorned, evidently.

 

[sol invictus]

Sure thing. But then why isn't Dr. Curry publishing in scientific journals and not championing some vague notion of "citizen science" where apparently making criticisms from the safety of a blog is somehow equal to publishing original research in peer reviewed journals? I'm pretty sure that when original research IS published it IS debated vigorously. The problem is that these people are playing to popular opinion, no the opinion of their peers and yet they want to be treated as equals. I'm certainly no philosopher of science but I'm pretty sure you never see that in less politicised fields, like the astronomy you mention

I'm not capable of (or interested in) defending Dr. Curry. But I do think there is a real worry here, namely that the level of vitriol and political pressure in this debate suppresses the diversity of legitimate scientific opinion. Unfortunately that diversity is particularly important for precisely the same reason that there is so much pressure - namely, the stakes are really high.

Policy makers crucially need honest, unvarnished assessments of how reliable climate projections are, and I don't know how easy those are to come by.

 

[Trakar]

I'm not capable of (or interested in) defending Dr. Curry. But I do think there is a real worry here, namely that the level of vitriol and political pressure in this debate suppresses the diversity of legitimate scientific opinion. Unfortunately that diversity is particularly important for precisely the same reason that there is so much pressure - namely, the stakes are really high.

Policy makers crucially need honest, unvarnished assessments of how reliable climate projections are, and I don't know how easy those are to come by.

What leads you, personally, to be concerned that the mainstream advice and information being offered by field acknowledged experts and leading national and international laboratories and research projects in the field of global climate studies are inaccurate, unreliable or without sufficient merit to serve as the basis of national and international policy decisions?

 

[sol invictus]

What leads you, personally, to be concerned that the mainstream advice and information being offered by field acknowledged experts and leading national and international laboratories and research projects in the field of global climate studies are inaccurate, unreliable or without sufficient merit to serve as the basis of national and international policy decisions?

I'm not concerned that climate scientists' views are "without sufficient merit to serve as the basis of national and international policy decisions"; they are the only thing that can serve in that capacity. I'm concerned that they may not be as accurate as they could be were the debate less warped by external pressures, and that they cannot be communicated as effectively or precisely as they could in a more neutral environment.

What leads me to that?

First, the existence of massive political pressure. It would be surprising if that had no effect on the quality of the science that gets done, on scientist's assessment of its predictive reliability, and on their ability to communicate it.

Second, my own assessment of the reliability of climate models. It seems to me that the confidence in them is somewhat overstated. That's based on my knowledge (which is not negligible, but not extensive either) of the science involved and its uncertainties, and because generally I'm skeptical of predictions of the future. I believe our confidence in them is nearly always overstated.

Third, it seems that the public debate on this issue is very polarized: either people bullheadedly deny the science (some go so far as to deny that the climate is rapidly warming, which given the evidence is absurd), or they believe that we understand in nearly complete detail the mechanisms that drive climate change and therefore can predict its future with great confidence. Both sides tend to overreact to disagreement, when what is needed is a calm, rational discourse so that we can try to arrive at the best policy.

 

[AlBell]

What leads you, personally, to be concerned that the mainstream advice and information being offered by field acknowledged experts and leading national and international laboratories and research projects in the field of global climate studies are inaccurate, unreliable or without sufficient merit to serve as the basis of national and international policy decisions?

What is the consensus mainstream advice, other than let's have another all-expense-paid conference somewhere?

Elsewhere you've mentioned 2050, or perhaps 2025 as key dates. What's the consensus opinion to back that up, and where is it? Or do I get told to read IPCC and realclimate.org and figure it out for myself?

 

[bit_pattern]

I'm not capable of (or interested in) defending Dr. Curry. But I do think there is a real worry here, namely that the level of vitriol and political pressure in this debate suppresses the diversity of legitimate scientific opinion.

Let me stop you there for a moment. For starters, legitimate scientific opinion is not being suppressed, this is an egregious misrepresentation in my opinion. Gavin Schmidt makes this point in the Real Climate article cited a page or so back:

The fact remains that science is hugely open to new thinking and new approaches. Indeed, it thrives on novelty. New data from new platforms, new calculations enabled by the increases in computing power and new analyses of the ever-increasing amount of observed data, each have the continual potential to challenge previously held ideas – if that can be demonstrated logically and with evidence to back it up. A recent example of a potentially dramatic new finding was the Haigh et al paper on solar forcing. If true, it would turn almost all work on solar effects on climate on its head, and they had no obvious problem publishing in Nature. This idea of knowledge sitting on a knife edge ready to flip whenever some new observation or insight arrives, is the reason why science is so exciting and fascinating.

If Dr. Curry, or any one else for that matter, was actually publishing contrary research that actually undermined mainstream climate science then they might have a point. No matter how they try, the simple fact is that the metadebate running over mediums like blogs simply is not equal to publishing research and when that gets ignored/dismissed/marginalised it does not mean that an equal side in the debate are being suppressed. Having an argument over how science is conducted might be useful but these people can't argue that their voice should be heard over the actual scientific facts, especially when the debate is being had in the context where mainstream audiences are being presented with the false dichotomy that there really IS legitimate scientific debate, backed by data and observation, that challenges the consensus.

 

[macdoc]

Sol
A reasonable approach except you are in a dichotomy....only one "side" is science based and not one climate scientist I am aware is claiming predictions written in stone as the largest variable of all is what emissions of fossil carbon humans will produce......

The only thing that can be done is run scenarios - as MIT has done

http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/...imate-change-is-going-to-be-twice-as-extreme/

showing say on the the one extreme what burning all the available fossil fuels would produce as one extreme and where the climate physics of that lead.....
and none would put a narrow time frame on the earth getting to that particular climate scenario as there is hysteresis and the reaction of say methane is very much uncertain beyond "not likely to be favourable".

Policy will determine the fossil fuel output of carbon and science has to the best of it's ability with current models stated that limiting fossil output so the climate stabilizes around 2 degrees C above the Holocene norms would not trigger the grave consequences to agriculture and biome that say a 6C rise would.

So that is policy calls guided by science....

That dialogue HAS occurred but has been interrupted significantly by paid for doubt foundations and bloggers whose activities have been clearly funded by the likes of Exxon and others whose self interest is in limiting policy of carbon reduction.

There is no doubt that has occurred, it is extensively documented to the point of the Royal Society and Exxon's own board members crying foul.

That is the "side" you are now proposing a rational dialogue with...
In my view it's not going to happen and the likes of Curry giving them the time of day simply tells the uninformed that there must be some truth in their denial.

It appears you know there is not ....it also appears you know that the development of policy towards the change is where the issue lies not in the underlying science.

Why then would you invite the most vociferous deniers to the table and lend their purposefully warped viewpoint any credence?

It does nothing toward "meaningful dialogue" over policy.....it simply strengthens those that for whatever self interested or outright deluded reasons prefer to do little or nothing.

it feeds the anti-science stance of the right wing, the AGW deniers and the anti-evos are often one and the same bedfellows.

Why ever give cranks the time of day....???
"Sides" imply equivalency, and in this case there is none from a climate science standpoint.....the verdict is in ...we are altering the climate rapidly by continued use of fossil fuels.

Should those denying verdict that be given a bully pulpit to attack it?

There is a huge difference between the mainstream climate science community and the sometimes idiotic tree huggers, NIMBYs who are equally problematic in achieving policy goals.

Even the likes of the Greenpeace founder turned pro-nuclear advocate has despaired of changing mindsets......
So why ever would you think the equally dogmatic anti-AGW crowd would be open to "dialogue"?

Instead they will just use the likes of Curry's nonsense to drive to try and drive a wedge into the consensus which does exist and which you acknowledge as far as the science goes.

There IS no consensus on policy and much of that lack must be laid at the feet of the denier industry funded by fossil fuel interests.
The rest on venal politicians and those without the balls to actually act.

•••

Bit pattern....+1.
Case in point is the inverted effect of solar activity - jumped on by the denidiots when in reality they don't understand it works in both directions and is a magnitude below C02/water vapour in effect.
it is very good science, it will effect modelling, it has no effect on the AGW reality.

 

[sol invictus]

audiences are being presented with the false dichotomy that there really IS legitimate scientific debate, backed by data and observation, that challenges the consensus.

But you see, if you were correct that no such debate exists, you would have confirmed precisely what I am worried about. There must be such a debate. That's what science is. And in fact the quote you provided sounds like it provides a recent example of such a debate.

Granted, there doesn't need to be a debate about all questions all the time: certain things become very well established, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. My concern is simply that the debate is more confined than it ought to be. How could it be otherwise, with the level of vitriol as it is?

But in my view the reaction ought to be the opposite of pulling back into an ivory shell. It ought to be an aggressive strategy of engagement, a conscious attempt to falsify alternatives as well as to actively protect those scientists that are criticizing the mainstream model from having their work hijacked for political purposes.

 

[macdoc]

How could it be otherwise, with the level of vitriol as it is?

Sorry but that is not a valid indicator......the IDers are vociferous as the the anti-vaxxers and anti-stem cell crowd.

Lends no credibility to their case, just demonstrates the stupidity of certain contingents of H Sapiens.

The vitriol is funded by big oil and big coal losing their free pass to using the atmosphere as a sewer...so they fund the soapbox idiots all the while knowing the score on AGW.

Has no place in science....

It is NOT the job of the scientist to take the case to the great unwashed.....it's up to the policy makers and politicians......

Pity the planet......

We dodged a bullet with the Montreal Accord......this cannon shell of AGW is not likely to to be dodged at all......

 

[sol invictus]

That is the "side" you are now proposing a rational dialogue with...
In my view it's not going to happen and the likes of Curry giving them the time of day simply tells the uninformed that there must be some truth in their denial.

It appears you know there is not ....it also appears you know that the development of policy towards the change is where the issue lies not in the underlying science.

Why then would you invite the most vociferous deniers to the table and lend their purposefully warped viewpoint any credence?

Recall the Scopes trial. At the time, it was illegal to teach evolution, and the creationists had the upper hand at least in regards to public opinion and the law. But the trial provided a neutral environment in which to let the debate play out, with the strengths and weaknesses of each side exposed for public view.

The result? Scopes was convicted for teaching evolution (because he was, in fact, guilty as charged). But the effect on the creationism/evolution debate was profound because it became clear how strong the evidence for evolution actually was, and how non-existent the evidence for the other side.

Science has an overwhelming advantage in such contests, because its very essence is to continually attack itself and attempt to unseat the dominant view. Correct ideas survive such attacks because they are correct. They have nothing to fear from them, and little or nothing to lose by them. Incorrect ideas, by contrast, get exposed - but only when there is a debate that allows that to happen.

So let the AGW deniers have their say. Give them a public forum, as public and high-profile as possible. Stop talking about consensus and let them make their case, then let mainstream scientists make theirs.

I think that would be superior to the current approach, both for the advancement of science (perhaps some real weaknesses would be exposed, you never know) and for the political side.

 

[bit_pattern]

But you see, if you were correct that no such debate exists, you would have confirmed precisely what I am worried about. There must be such a debate. That's what science is. And in fact the quote you provided sounds like it provides a recent example of such a debate.

Allow me to clarify, what gets presented as "debate" to mainstream (non-scientific) audiences is usually a hodgepodge of criticisms of processes with a smattering of reference to work that has been debated and dismissed within the scientific community. The so-called 'hockey stick' is a prime example. Within the scientific community, when research presents itself that does appear to challenge the consensus then it is debated on its merits, and, more often than not, the scant amount of contradictory research that does surface is found to be wanting.

In the 70's there was a debate over whether aerosol dimming would be more dominant than GHG warming, as the evidence for GHG warming mounted the case for dimming was abandoned.

In the eighties there was a debate surrounding the temperature record and why the satellite record disagreed with the surface temperature record, in due time a problem was fund with the satellite record which, once resolved, proved that the was no great divergence between the two.

In the 90's it was the paleoclimatic record and whether the late 20th century warming was unique, and again after significant evidence emerged this debate was largely finished with.

By the 2000's, argument about climate sensitivity and potential unquantified forcings such as cosmic rays were debated, again these issues have been largely put to bed.

When research comes along that challenges the mainstream then it is rigorously debated within the scientific community, it is nonsense to say it is being suppressed, but over forty years no such debate has come close to challenging the veracity of AGW theory. When I say there is no debate, I mean to say that there is no significant body of research and observation that in anyway challenges the current consensus.

And even Haigh et. al., cited above as a recent example, wouldn't actually undermine the validity of AGW theory, although it would require a reworking of solar forcing in GCM's - it might change the predictive outcome but it doesn't change the bedrock on which the theory is built, which is the way the "debate" is often presented in the popular press.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

It all ready has been proved, by me an d others, you refusing to acknowledge the evidence doesn't make it any less so. It just makes you a particularly irritating person to argue with. I bet you're real hoot at dinner parties..

You are saying you have proved that the poll is not reflective of the opinions of sensible people. FAIL! What you have provided is some opinion, valid, sure, but nowhere near proof.

Pity the planet......

We dodged a bullet with the Montreal Accord......this cannon shell of AGW is not likely to to be dodged at all......

I see that exaggerated alarmism hasn't disappeared.

Recall the Scopes trial. At the time, it was illegal to teach evolution, and the creationists had the upper hand at least in regards to public opinion and the law. But the trial provided a neutral environment in which to let the debate play out, with the strengths and weaknesses of each side exposed for public view.

The result? Scopes was convicted for teaching evolution (because he was, in fact, guilty as charged). But the effect on the creationism/evolution debate was profound because it became clear how strong the evidence for evolution actually was, and how non-existent the evidence for the other side.

Science has an overwhelming advantage in such contests, because its very essence is to continually attack itself and attempt to unseat the dominant view. Correct ideas survive such attacks because they are correct. They have nothing to fear from them, and little or nothing to lose by them. Incorrect ideas, by contrast, get exposed - but only when there is a debate that allows that to happen.

So let the AGW deniers have their say. Give them a public forum, as public and high-profile as possible. Stop talking about consensus and let them make their case, then let mainstream scientists make theirs.

I think that would be superior to the current approach, both for the advancement of science (perhaps some real weaknesses would be exposed, you never know) and for the political side.

Well said.
QFT

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Allow me to clarify, what gets presented as "debate" to mainstream (non-scientific) audiences is usually a hodgepodge of criticisms of processes with a smattering of reference to work that has been debated and dismissed within the scientific community. The so-called 'hockey stick' is a prime example. Within the scientific community, when research presents itself that does appear to challenge the consensus then it is debated on its merits, and, more often than not, the scant amount of contradictory research that does surface is found to be wanting. In the 70's there was a debate over whether aerosol dimming would be more dominant than GHG warming, as the evidence for GHG warming mounted the case for dimming was abandoned. In the eighties there was a debate surrounding the temperature record and why the satellite record disagreed with the surface temperature record, in due time a problem was fund with the satellite record which, once resolved, proved that the was no great divergence between the two. In the 90's it was the paleoclimatic record and whether the late 20th century warming was unique, and again after significant evidence emerged this debate was largely finished with. By the 2000's, argument about climate sensitivity and potential unquantified forcings such as cosmic rays were debated, again these issues have been largely put to bed. When research comes along that challenges the mainstream then it is rigorously debated within the scientific community, it is nonsense to say it is being suppressed, but over forty years no such debate has come close to challenging the veracity of AGW theory. When I say there is no debate, I mean to say that there is no significant body of research and observation that in anyway challenges the current consensus. And even Haigh et. al., cited above as a recent example, would actually undermine the validity of AGW theory, although it would require a reworking of solar forcing in GCM's - it might change the predictive outcome but it doesn't change the bedrock on which the theory is built, which is the way the "debate" is often presented in the popular press.

paragraphs are your friend

 

[Trakar]

I'm not concerned that climate scientists' views are "without sufficient merit to serve as the basis of national and international policy decisions"; they are the only thing that can serve in that capacity.

I'm concerned that they may not be as accurate as they could be were the debate less warped by external pressures, and that they cannot be communicated as effectively or precisely as they could in a more neutral environment.

While an argument might be made that the latter is what is rejected in the former, I assume you mean that if there were not the external (to the science) polarized social discussion, that the experts could present their evidences and recommendations, and the law makers could review the science and solution options, with more objectivity and less "noise" to distract and distort their considerations?

This might well be case, were the issue largely inconsequential, and therefore did not require substantial political and social concensus and effort in order to properly and adequately address. Unfortunately, even in the best of situations, elected representatives are rarely objective, and technically would be failing in their duties as representatives if they do not reflect the views and understandings of those they are elected to represent (regardless of objective fact or reason). The science is not political, but any actions taken in regards to that science, are.

We are left trying to deal with the situation we face rather than the one we might wish we faced.

What leads me to that?

First, the existence of massive political pressure. It would be surprising if that had no effect on the quality of the science that gets done, on scientist's assessment of its predictive reliability, and on their ability to communicate it.

Of certainty, there is pressure, and being one of the greatest problems to face our society and species, that pressure on both the experts and the law makers tends to actually be under-estimated by the public in general. It would be naive to think that this pressure doesn't see at least some reflection in the character of the way in which the science is presented, and the way law-makers react to the science presented to them.

None of this seriously alters the science, but it does impact the perceptions of many indivduals who really don't care about the science so much, and really aren't equipped to properly evaluate and assess the science if they were inclined to pay attention to it. I wish it weren't so, but it is rather obvious.

Second, my own assessment of the reliability of climate models. It seems to me that the confidence in them is somewhat overstated. That's based on my knowledge (which is not negligible, but not extensive either) of the science involved and its uncertainties, and because generally I'm skeptical of predictions of the future. I believe our confidence in them is nearly always overstated.

You do realize that this isn't all models and projections, I hope. That is one aspect, but far from the main or only evidence upon which climate condition estimations, projections and senarios are built. Which confidence statements do you find to be overstated/undersupported? What supports you beliefs that scientific projections are nearly always overstated? In my own experience scientific estimations and projections are almost always extremely conservative and understated.

Third, it seems that the public debate on this issue is very polarized: either people bullheadedly deny the science (some go so far as to deny that the climate is rapidly warming, which given the evidence is absurd), or they believe that we understand in nearly complete detail the mechanisms that drive climate change and therefore can predict its future with great confidence. Both sides tend to overreact to disagreement, when what is needed is a calm, rational discourse so that we can try to arrive at the best policy.

That would be fantastic in an ideal situation, but American Politics is about as far from rational and any ideal situation as any could devise. The Science isn't affected by the politics (at least not significantly), but action or inaction is going to be almost entirely political in decision and motivation. The only time politics acts with rational discourse is when there really are no decisions to make or no personal or party benefit to any decisions made.

 

[bit_pattern]

You are saying you have proved that the poll is not reflective of the opinions of sensible people. FAIL!

Please point out where I made that claim. The only FAIL! here is you proving the stereotype of deniers as prone to flagrant displays of incorrigible intellectual dishonesty.

What you have provided is some opinion, valid, sure, but nowhere near proof.

No, what I have is 100% proof that the only thing the poll "proves" is that a significant number of people who respond to anonymous internet polls on the question of whether climate change is real or not are likely to be deniers. With absolutely zero in the way of statistical methodology that is the only result you can take from such a poll. I bet you are a big fan of Hearld-Sun phone-in polls too, huh? You think that they actually mean something, right? Well, I put i to you that this abysmal comprehension of matters like scientific methodology is a good part of the reason why you are such a sucker for woo-woo denier-tard nonsense.