Why do people accept "climate" research that is not "double blind"?

Having done quite a bit of research into the various "positions" of "scientist" on both sides of this debate, I wonder what would happen to the "research" AND the "researchers/scientist" if they were held to the same stringent "double blind" standards that medical research is held to?





So much of the global warming "research" is not actually scientific research done in the field, but "computer modelling". Which is like having a computer "guess". Maybe a computer can "guess" better than humans, but guesses are just that, guesses regardless of who or what is "guessing". Surely this is a situation that "everyone knows" so why is it permitted to continue?





I acknowledge that there is some science out there that does adhere to a tough standard, but very little. And the results of such stringently conducted research finds that there is very little incontrovertable results that support global warming.





Do you accept this? Why?

Why do people accept "climate" research that is not "double blind"?
Some people believe anything. Remember Phrenology was thought to be real, and also the "science" of Eugenics was embraced by several nations. Books are also very powerful on a persons psyche. The book "Silent Spring" while containing no factual information caused the death of millions who believed the premise of the book.





Movies also are a good way to sway an argument. After "One Flew Over the Cook-Coos Nest" millions of insane were let out only to be homeless, "China Syndrome" shut down the nuclear power industry with no factual data only to give us power generated by fossil fuels.





And a good number still believe that "mysterious forces" created crop circles, and think we've been visited by UFOs!





Basically, we make up stuff to explain things we don't understand.
Reply:There is only one way to take data from the past, and, project that data into the future, a model. It doesn't mean the model is good, or bad, just, that is the only way to perform such an activity.
Reply:Thank you! I have been doing research my entire life and for a very long time assumed that all of the research done on the climate and global warming had to adhere to strict codes of conduct. Obviously I was mistaken.
Reply:people sometimes just want to hear what they want to hear. Some people are more sick than others and prefer to be scared with apocalyptic stories. We all have a weakness for the sensational stuff, otherwise the media wouldn't be doing so good if those kinds of stories didn't sell.
Reply:The precedent of accepting sloppy, politically driven, science was established when the scientific community embraced the Theory of Evolution.





Science simply isn't capable of directly observing things that move immeasurably slow, so they attempt to fill in the gaps with mathematics. The problem is that the Scientific method is a relatively new idea in the Universe. Things like macroevolution, massive climate change, and the formation of galaxies can take millions of years, but we've only really been carefully watching for a few hundred. It's natural for scientists to postulate whatever they can from whatever they get. No it isn't good science, but good science is just trial and error anyway. It's not the most efficient method of learning, but it's the most thorough.





Is it any wonder that a scientist who's grant is reviewed yearly would prefer not to wait 10,000 years to see the next ice age to find out if he was right or wrong?
Reply:M, are you serious? "Flimsy evidence that Iraq had biological and chemical weapons programs?"





Well lets see, there is the fact that sadaam used chemical weapons against the kurds and the iranians. There is the fact that after the Gulf War, the UN demanded on 17 different occasions that Iraq give up their chemical and biological weapons, under UN review. There is the fact that Iraq expelled the UN inspectors before completely disarming, and refused to allow them back in. And of course there is the fact that the last set of inspections actually did find weapons that were not destroyed by Iraq after they kicked out the inspectors, and found evidence of a Poisons and Toxins for Asassinations program that the UN didn't know about. Read the Duelfer report.





Yeah, that evidence is pretty flimsy.
Reply:This is a red herring.





Double blind does not apply to climate research. Double blind is used where humans may react differently based on what they know or do not know. In other circumstances, a control is used.





Since a control is impractical, computer modelling, observation, and extrapolation have to suffice.
Reply:"double blind" trials are typically in place to avoid misleading input from the patient - not the doctor or scientist doing the experiment - and since the entire earth is the "patient" so to speak - it's a little ridiculous





you seem to have your answers already though having the tone of a right-winger, in the sardonic tone of the question you don't really want answered (the "quotation" "marks" in "excess" is a "clue")





but here's a question: why does the GOP put such high standards of testing so squarely on the shoulders of the global waming scientific community while accepting even the flimsiest of evidence showing Iraq had a "biological and chemical weapons program" in full swing which demanded our all-consuming attention drawn away from the hunt for justice for the 9-11 attacks?





seems like utter hypocrisy to me, pretending to have such standards of tolerance for one thing (the prove-up of global warming) while having such flimisly construed standards for accepting bar-none any sort of random gibberish doled out by this administration (anything at all)?





but then, the GOP has never been a stranger to blatant hypocrisy
Reply:I dont think this is some kinda of litmus test in which we are dealing with the common person.





I think that neither side needs to be blind but should be able to examine the others data for relevancy and accuracy.





I think that is the best way to deal with this. Why allow someone submitting skewed data to be able to hide behind the double blind method.


Rather , they should be out in the open where honest peer review from all angles should be able to examine it for honesty and accuracy.