One: the corruption of science

At some stage in humanity’s history, we began to value the truth over received wisdom. Received wisdom bound us together, and the truth was sometimes uncomfortable. Nevertheless, the ideal of truth won out because the benefits of knowledge far outweighed the benefits of conformity.

The tool to decide what is true in the world is science. Some wrong ideas were easy to overturn – crocodiles did not arise from rotting logs, fossil shells on mountains were not the result of a great flood, and male and female children did not receive their father’s genetic contribution from his left and right testis respectively (or was it the other way around?). Other questions such as the nature of matter were rather harder to solve. For a scientist, finding the right answer was the prime motive. Actually being right was supposedly relegated to a matter of no consequence. Someone proved you wrong? Thank them politely for expanding the space of human understanding. Your experiment didn’t work? Publish the null result and design a new one.

The ideal of science was never lived up to by all scientists. Maybe it was never lived up to by any scientist, not completely. Scientists are only human; but even if no one could reach that ideal, it was there, a guiding light in the darkness to strive towards. That light is still there, and it always will be. But there are increasing forces pulling scientists away from the narrow way that leads to truth.

That may seem like the expansive grandiose arm-wave of an isolated intellect that thinks the rest of the world is irrational. One of us is wrong, and the most parsimonious answer for a casual observer is that it ain’t the world. Some of us may recognise incipient conspiracy ideation in ourselves, yet harbour a longstanding sense of unease: there is something wrong in the world of science. Just occasionally an article is published that gives its reader a chance to take the red pill, and for a time at least see the world for what it really is. We are blessed that three such articles recently arrived almost at once.

The first is “How science has been corrupted” by Matthew Crawford, May 3rd 2021 (UnHerd).

There is a disconnect, Crawford says, between our idealised understanding of science and the reality of science, between our naïve picture of an individual scientist and science as conducted by institutions. We trust science because it is neutral, and because no wrong answer in science can persist for long. It is precisely because science is the “disinterested arbiter of reality” that it is also a “powerful instrument of politics.” Some results are popular, and some are not. To enable science to project the authority that politics wants to use it for, science has to become something it is not. Faith in science is declining, and the “most reprobate among us are climate sceptics, unless those be the Covid deniers.”
The present regime is an “unstable hybrid of democratic and technocratic forms of authority.” The official way to harmonise popular opinion with science is through education: we are given the tools to check everything we are told. But science is too wide and too deep for any one person to grasp even a small fraction of, so that even the smartest and most widely read of us have to take science mostly on trust. We are told what to think via what Crawford describes as a “distributed demagogy of scientism.” I might disagree with this terminology, but see his point. If “follow the science” has a hollow ring to it, it’s because science doesn’t lead anywhere, or at least it isn’t supposed to. Science might be “if A then B”, but it may have become “if A then B, therefore we must do C.” The course of action chosen is not science, it’s politics. Politics should be democracy (I certainly think so), which means the course of action should be decided democratically.

Increasingly, science is pressed into duty as authority. It is invoked to legitimise the transfer of sovereignty from democratic to technocratic bodies, and as a device for insulating such moves from the realm of political contest.

Over the course of the pandemic we have had “government by emergency”, resistance to which is characterised as “anti-science.”

…the question of political legitimacy hanging over rule by experts is not likely to go away. If anything, it will be more fiercely fought in coming years as leaders of governing bodies invoke a climate emergency that is said to require a wholesale transformation of society. We need to know how we arrived here.

So how did we arrive here? Crawford cites Martin Gurri in blaming the internet for knocking over the first domino. The internet is a great thing. An internet search replaces in an instant what might have been a day of toil in a library only 30 years ago. It also enables people with fringe views to find one another, whether or not those fringe views have any basis. The internet, by its nature, has led to a collapse in authority across the board, and that includes the authority of science. Now the mistakes of experts are laid bare, and in consequence, people are less likely to defer to those experts, seeing them not as infallible knowledge titans, but as imperfect humans who might not have the ideal of science at the forefront of their motivations 100% of the time.

Now, science is primarily organised around “knowledge monopolies” that exclude dissident views.

That is certainly a statement that many climate sceptics would recognise. And of course, just in case there are outsiders who disagree, we can always redefine what peer review means. Actually peer review is not the panacea we hope it might be even before it has been redefined: reviewers are colleagues who let papers sail by, or they are competitors who erect roadblocks. Neither option works for science. Here Crawford talks of Climategate, and (citing Gurri again) the way peer review was controlled by a cartel to keep dissenters out, while also claiming that very peer review as the bedrock of their authority. In other words, the authority of peer review is based on circular logic.

Journalists, rarely competent to assess scientific statements critically, cooperate in propagating the pronouncements of self-protecting “research cartels” as science.

Climate sceptics will recognise this statement too. It is obvious to a sceptic having a little knowledge about the climate that journalists often lack a basic understanding of what they are writing about.

One can be fully convinced of the reality and dire consequences of climate change while also permitting oneself some curiosity about the political pressures that bear on the science, I hope.

This statement is interesting: as you might guess, I disagree. It seems that having argued that climate alarm might be based on unstable foundations, Crawford is still willing to accept the argument from authority that we’re all doomed. But he notes that the IPCC is designed to produce political authority – an official stamp of approval for potentially draconian measures that bypass democracy.

Next Crawford turns to moralism, and again this is a topic that climate sceptics will recognise. Disagreement with policy, rather than being an acceptable contest of ideas, instead becomes a matter of good vs evil, them and us, in-group and out-group. Greta Thunberg is described as the “ideal victim-sage,” able to inject the necessary moral urgency into the flagging Cause.

The inane, untroubled by fact, but earnest remarks of celebrities strengthen the hand of activists, who in turn lead campaigns to silence and censure dissidents who are acting as conduits of “disinformation.” Institutions who refuse to bend the knee are “placed under a moral receivership” until they inevitably cave. Once the institution has distanced itself from the dissident/cancelled them, they are forgiven. Then said institution cravenly affirms the goals of the activists in public statements.

There is a “logic of escalation” that increasingly limits acceptable topics of enquiry, aligning them with activists’ goals, all of which is presented as a drama “restoring scientific integrity.” In reality of course, this has nothing at all to do with restoring scientific integrity. It is all about stifling awkward questions and unwanted answers so that the approved policy can plough forwards.

Weakened by the uncontrolled dissemination of information and attendant fracturing of authority, the institutions that ratify particular pictures of what is going on in the world must not merely assert a monopoly of knowledge, but place a moratorium on the asking of questions and noticing of patterns.

Our behaviour is controlled by moral panics. If asked, in full possession of the facts, we would often choose a quite different course to that being decided for us. (Net Zero, I’m looking at you.) Popular opinion is dragged after The Science by scientism, so that the technocrats can decide what to do, and the deluded public think it is upon their instruction. My opinion of the public in general is probably unfair, but I think our fellow citizens have a fixed idea about climate change that is as thin as a piece of paper: they know we are doomed, but they are unlikely to know what percentage of the atmosphere is the carbon dioxide that is dooming us. (I suspect the average estimate would be about a hundred times on the high side; Crawford cites the survey of July last that showed a sizeable chunk of our friends and neighbours thought that “6-10% or higher” of the population had died of Covid-19 as a pandemic version of the effect.)

Now that we have victims, we have someone we can stupidly claim to be “standing with.” Such posturing is another piece of armour to deflect criticism.

There follows a discussion of the pandemic and the success of government by terror:

The spectacular success of “public health” in generating fearful acquiescence in the population during the pandemic has created a rush to take every technocratic-progressive project that would have poor chances if pursued democratically, and cast it as a response to some existential threat. In the first week of the Biden administration, the Senate majority leader urged the president to declare a “climate emergency” and assume powers that would authorise him to sidestep Congress and rule by executive fiat. Ominously, we are being prepared for “climate lockdowns”.

Two: overturning the pandemic origins paradigm

The second article, one that illustrates many of the problems that Crawford identifies, is Nicholas Wade’s The origin of COVID: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box at Wuhan? I first saw this in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (5th May 2021), but apparently it first appeared at Medium. This meticulously researched and scrupulously disinterested article assesses the evidence for natural or artificial origins of Covid-19. Wade does not state unequivocally that Covid-19 was created in a lab, but presents an avalanche of evidence that it did. The natural origin hypothesis, in contrast, has little support… and yet for more than a year, it has not only been the prime explanation, its alternative was not considered even plausible. What happened?

My memory of the beginning of the pandemic as seen through the media is of an initial focus on the wet market. We knew that viruses had leapt from bats to humans via an intermediate host before. In my imagination, wet markets were a close approximation to hell on Earth, so I had no difficulty in putting the two ideas together to make Covid-19 a product of animals kept in squalid and cruel conditions. The fact of the nearby Wuhan Institute of Virology and its research on coronaviruses soon offered an alternative hypothesis. Again my memory may be faulty but I recall an article indicating that the virus was natural, not artificial, which seemed to scotch the idea. Perhaps I should have borne in mind that “artificial” has a variety of meanings. A greyhound is faster than a wolf in a sprint: but is it natural or artificial? Wade notes that the natural origins theory was vigorously promoted from the start by two influential publications. The first was in the Lancet:

“We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin,” a group of virologists and others wrote in the Lancet on February 19, 2020, when it was really far too soon for anyone to be sure what had happened. Scientists “overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife,” they said, with a stirring rallying call for readers to stand with Chinese colleagues on the frontline of fighting the disease.

“Overwhelmingly conclude,” as well as being nonsense, has to me a ring of climate science about it. The authors condemned the “conspiracy theories” of the alternative hypothesis. Only now are people realising that one of the authors of the Lancet piece, and according to Wade its originator and drafter, was rather invested in turning the natural origins theory into a paradigm. That author, Peter Daszak, had funded coronavirus research at the Wuhan lab. Having your own creation escape and wreak havoc is not good PR, as Baron Frankenstein discovered. Perhaps Frankenstein should have got together with some gentleman scholars and penned an article decrying the “conspiracy theories” that the monster originated in a lab. And declared no competing interests, as Daszak did. But I digress.

The second article discussed by Wade was in Nature Medicine on March 17th 2020. Kristian G. Andersen and colleagues showed that Covid-19 was “not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.” Well, they couldn’t be clearer than that. Well, actually they could, because later on the word “improbable” creeps in: if laboratory manipulation is improbable, it is clearly still possible. The reasons they asserted that Covid-19 was natural now sound like a failure of logic: (i) the spike protein is a good fit for the human cell, but it is not perfect, so it cannot be artificial; and (ii) the DNA backbone of Covid-19 was not in a laboratory catalogue, so it cannot be artificial. Both fail for obvious reasons.

At this point Science rides in and corrects things – or it does in an alternate universe. In our universe:

The Daszak and Andersen letters were really political, not scientific, statements, yet were amazingly effective. Articles in the mainstream press repeatedly stated that a consensus of experts had ruled lab escape out of the question or extremely unlikely.

Wade’s opinion is that this was dangerous ground for other virologists to tread if they had any concern about the chance of success of their next grant application. Too, the sub-community of virologists interested in gain-of-function research – i.e. the bunch most qualified to opine on the lab-leak theory – were probably a tad nervous about explaining the research they had engaged in for years and its suddenly-obvious attendant risks for fear that a portion of blame would be directed their way. Meanwhile the media opposed the lab-leak idea automatically, just because it was supported by Donald Trump:

“Anthony Fauci just crushed Donald Trump’s theory on the origins of the coronavirus”

CNN, May 5, 2020

I won’t go into the detail of all the evidence for the escape of a souped-up virus in Wade’s article here. There is plenty of it, and to me it is compelling; I cannot recommend Wade’s article highly enough. What follows is instead a mere bullet-point list of the evidence for the lab-leak theory:

  • No traces of Covid-19 progenitors in environment
  • Known gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases via Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance
  • Lax biosecurity measures (described as equivalent to a dentist’s surgery); previous examples of escapes
  • 100 bat coronaviruses collected by “Bat Lady” Shi Zheng-Li working at WIV
  • Shi earlier reported creating a chimera
  • Bat caves where Shi collected coronaviruses 1500 km from Wuhan; Wuhan already too cold by September for horseshoe bats to be active; their range 50 km
  • No documented evolution of adaptation from intermediate host to human host (as found in SARS)
  • Covid-19 “well adapted to humans from its first appearance”
  • Limited genetic diversity indicating a single source rather than a population of virus
  • No intermediate host identified after nearly 18 months
  • Furin cleavage site (FCS) making virus very well adapted to human cells unlikely to have evolved by chance; of all beta coronaviruses, only Covid-19 possesses an FCS; a history of adding FCS to viruses as part of gain-of-function research, including by Shi; unusual codon sequence indicating potential lab origin of FCS
  • If there was no intermediate host but Covid-19 passed straight from bats to humans, it would still be well adapted to bats, but it is poorly adapted to bats.
  • Reports of 3 WIV workers hospitalised with symptoms consistent with Covid-19 in November 2019
  • Chinese history of denying everything; silencing whistleblowers; covering up mistakes; not allowing WHO team to see lab books/ interview WIV staff
  • Daszak on WHO team
  • WHO conclusion that lab-leak “extremely unlikely” not conforming with evidence

Circumstantial, but again, to my mind, in totality, compelling.

The story of Covid-19 does chime with Crawford’s opinion about the corruption of science. Here we have an answer that was probably wrong, but once it became the “approved” answer, it rapidly excluded all others. Once the narrative had been shaped by the scientists, the media slavishly followed along. Dissent was stifled. Donald Trump’s view naturally polarised things, so that if you didn’t like Trump, you couldn’t like the lab-leak theory either. Other aspects of the pandemic exemplify other parts of the corruption theory: moralism, with every challenge to control measures treated as good vs evil (as if there was not a balance point somewhere). I hope you noticed Wade’s reference to “consensus” as reported in the media too.

In light of ongoing investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and in consultation with public health experts, we will no longer remove the claim that COVID-19 is man-made or manufactured from our apps. We’re continuing to work with health experts to keep pace with the evolving nature of the pandemic and regularly update our policies as new facts and trends emerge.

Facebook statement on May 26, 2021 (via WUWT; I don’t have Facebook, nor will I ever)

New facts and trends…? This sounds awfully like when a theory becomes popular, they’re going to stop censoring it?

Does it matter that our understanding of Covid-19’s origins was probably wrong, and that competing theories were excluded from public discourse? The obvious answer to that is a firm Yes because the next pandemic might come from the same source, and who knows, it might be worse than Covid-19. It might even leave Earth a derelict planet.

Three: something fishy in fish behavioural science

Finally, there’s one more loose thread I need to tease out of the tapestry of modern science before I go. This is the third of the trio of articles: the May 6th 2021 piece by Martin Enserink in Science: Does ocean acidification alter fish behavior? Fraud allegations create a sea of doubt. Enserink discusses the ongoing saga of suspicious, and in one case definitely fraudulent, fish behaviour studies. These centre around James Cook University, infamous in sceptic circles for cancelling Peter Ridd after his uncollegiate remarks about their reef science. They also have a climate change angle, because they relate to the effect of increasing CO2 concentrations on fish behaviour.

Now, if you were going to predict the properties of a fraudulent scientific paper, which of the following would you pick? Eye-catching or dull? Top journal or obscure journal? Result or non-result? Going the “right” way or the “wrong” way? A call for action or with no societal implications? A young researcher or one nearing retirement? Requiring elaborate experimental setup, or easy to replicate? Requiring long tedious hours of accurate recording, or easy to obtain a result quickly?

You will have heard of Oona Lönnstedt, or at least you’ll be familiar with her “work,” a paper about microplastics and fish behaviour that was published in Science in 2016. Lönnstedt was a young researcher who had obtained her PhD at JCU. Moving to Uppsala University, her research switched from reef fish to Baltic perch. Her Science paper showed that perch larvae swallowed microplastics, which affected their behaviour, making them more likely to be a meal for bigger fish.

[Josefin] Sundin, also at UU at the time, says she immediately thought the paper was “a total fantasy.” She and [Fredrik] Jutfelt had spent time with Lönnstedt at a Baltic island research station, but had never seen a study on the scale described in the paper.

Sundin and colleagues blew the whistle, but

…a UU panel dismissed the request for an investigation in a terse report and berated the team for failing to discuss its concerns with Lönnstedt and Eklöv in a “normal scholarly discussion.”

Shades of Peter Ridd’s uncollegiate behaviour there. However, the evidence piled up, and the paper was pulled in 2017. This I think was the outside world’s first notification that there might be shenanigans going on in the world of fish behavioural science, but insiders had been suspicious of the carbon dioxide/behaviour results for quite a time. Regarding the microplastics study,

The brazenness of the apparent deception shocked Jutfelt. “It really triggered my skepticism about science massively,” he says. “Before that paper, I could not understand how anyone could fabricate data. It was inconceivable to me.” Now, he began to wonder how many other papers might be a total fantasy. The experience also taught the group that, if they were ever to blow the whistle again, they would have to bring a stronger case right from the start, [Timothy] Clark says.

The JCU CO2/fish behaviour work of Philip Munday and Danielle Dixson that spawned headlines like “Ocean acidification can mess with a fish’s mind” and was included in AR5 took a screeching turn in 2020. Clark et al’s effort to replicate the study was

…a stellar example of research replication that cast doubt on extraordinary claims that should have received closer scrutiny from the start.

Not everyone agreed. The Clark team were described as an “odd little bro-pocket”, whatever that is; their motivations were described as not scientific, but sadistic.

Where the original work had found astounding changes in fish behaviour with elevated CO2, the meticulous Clark replication effort found none.

What few researchers know is that in August 2020, Clark and three others in the group took another, far bigger step: They asked three funders that together spent millions on Dixson’s and Munday’s work—the Australian Research Council (ARC), the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), and the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH)—to investigate possible fraud in 22 papers.

That’s 22 papers. There looks to have been a bit of cut’n’pasting going on, for where raw data are available, there are duplicated blocks of numbers.

The statements [by former colleagues] about Munday’s lab don’t contain concrete fraud accusations, but those about Dixson do. One former colleague became “slowly more suspicious,” especially about the fluming studies, and began to monitor them covertly. The testimony contains text messages and photos of lab notebooks that appear to show Dixson did not spend enough time in the lab for one particular study and could not possibly have produced the data she reported.

Research on the effects of elevated CO2 on fish behaviour are apparently showing a strong “decline effect”: after initial huge effect sizes, subsequent work shows effects that fade over time. This would be unsurprising if a large chunk of the original data were made up.

What does this episode tell us about science today? Like Jutfelt, I find it hard to stomach that some researchers might be prepared to make up data. But there are clearly “scientists” who are prepared to do just that, to in effect lie to the public about nature. As to their motivations, they are obvious enough: they want eye-catching results in top journals that will enable them to carve out successful careers and rake in large grants. Of course the likely culprits are the young, who have yet to establish themselves; the results they fake have to be “important” enough to warrant publication in top journals; and you can bet your bottom dollar that the results mean that things are “worse than we thought” – whether that be because of climate change or pollution. It tells us that peer review is incapable of catching fraud at the initial stage, and that whistle-blowing is unwelcome in universities, which naturally have a conflict of interest. It tells us that replication is vitally important, even though the priorities of grant-awarding bodies are otherwise.

A final perhaps surprising opinion: faked results probably match what the researchers think they would obtain if they could be bothered to do the work properly.


Taken together, these three articles show that while science might be perfect, scientists are humans. They exist in a world where they are competing with others, where they have hopes and fears, where there are preferred cultural narratives, a world where the media soon latches onto an approved theory, where striking results can be more important than true results, where insecurity might lead to temptation, where politicians rely on them as a source of authority, where consensus is given too much importance, where ethical behaviour can bring them trouble and where it might be better to walk on by when they suspect malpractice rather than getting involved.


Science can save us from the next pandemic, if we want it to.


Featured image: NASA; headline: The Sunday Times, 30th May 2021


  1. “Crawford cites Martin Gurri in blaming the internet for knocking over the first domino.”

    This war has been going on for millennia at least, and it is not only the system of science that is constantly under attack by cultural behaviours, but other rational systems that promote objectivity and objective practice at social scale. Such as the law, and democracy. Even as all these systems constantly work to constrain cultural behaviours, they are themselves constantly warped and undermined by those same cultural behaviours, resulting in ebbs and flows, victories or losses that can dominate a whole region or a whole generation. Part of the problem here is that we still need the cultural behaviours. Bear in mind that they’re so deeply ingrained because they were an evolutionary advantage. And likely still are, in more limited form, for all we know. Try to get any large team to do something without any team spirit; without it 100 people have 100 opinions, with it they are, largely, one. We need to understand the fundamental nature of the battle, and then how to release what we need from culture, while keeping the rest strictly tamed. Our very objective systems sometimes have to lean on or borrow from culture to gain prominence, yet this opens dangerous doors, just one mentioned above being ‘THE AUTHORITY of SCIENCE’. Given that we are indeed all human and so any system we invent will be subject to the same behavioural vulnerabilities, I suspect there is no quick fix here. Which doesn’t mean no routes to advance; bad smells emanate from the whole system of science publication / peer review. But with more scientists than ever before, how else would the best in science be both surfaced and enacted for humanity’s benefit?

    Liked by 3 people

  2. Another example of the power of received wisdom, the failure of James Hutton to persuade most of the scientific community of his day of his discoveries at Siccar Point and elsewhere, that the earth is much older than the Bible claims and that the action of subterranean heat plays a role in the formation of the planet.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Beth. You ignore the established fact that Hutton couldn’t write convincingly and so was unable to enter the debate. It was John Playfair who popularised his revolutionary thoughts and Charles Lyell who exploited them, winning the day against European catastrophism. At university I was introduced to Hutton’s masterpiece. It is unreadable and a copy of it was never taken out of the library.
    JIT’s selection of these three scientific papers well illustrates the point that to be effective in science you not only need to have good evidence and logic but also the ability to write convincingly. This is something that is hard for many scientists to acquire and few get any training in it.


  4. I have only read the Wade article in any detail, but my interest concerns when science (or in this case represented by an eminent science journalist) can make firm conclusions, especially about a contentious subject. Wade marshals the evidence, like a general. He is, however, a disinterested general. He plays fair. Evidence supporting the “natural” and the escaped laboratory origins are given equal billing, and just as importantly equivalent support in terms of the language used. This last point makes the article exceptional. Unfortunately Wade comes to no firm conclusions, even though he states the evidence and arguments overwhelmingly point towards the laboratory escape interpretation. Wade writes “I have only clues, not conclusions, to offer. But those clues point in a specific direction.”

    But my question is “when are clues sufficient to form conclusions?” Wade apparently requires access to Wuhan lab notes (or their equivalents) before he will jump from the fence (at least in writing). Yet a prisoner can be condemned in a criminal court of law with much less circumstantial evidence than Wade produces to support the blame Wuhan lab case. Yes, by asking for conclusions we expose ourselves to error, but Science (and Judges and Juries) makes errors sometimes and offers corrections. Fence sitting can only be pursued for a limited time.

    I believe Science makes a fundamental error when it fails to correct itself in the face of, what to most should be, overwhelming evidence. That this wasn’t done sooner, as JIT implies, indicates the increasing power of those who wish to mould Science to their political or fiscal purposes.


  5. Andy, I may not have phrased that bit very well. I think he is saying that the internet undermined the existing “easy” authority, which necessitated the more militaristic type we see today.

    The realm of “what matters” has changed over time. Of course there were the troubles over heliocentrism etc way back, and there may also be an issue here of scholarly disagreement vs among the plebs.

    As a kid, if I wanted to find something out, I had to visit the central library and consult Encyclopaedia Britannica. I would have no recourse to other forms of knowledge. What chance a climate sceptic in the 1980s? But we have competing issues: I would only have had the one source of info, but I would have considered it authoritative. Now, I have the whole playground of the internet, where no theory is wacky enough to not have a home, so I need to be constantly on guard against seeking out info that agrees with my preconceptions and ignoring info that opposes it.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Jit: people probably said similar when printing presses first came in. But the same war working via the same mechanisms predates this event too. This doesn’t mean printing presses or the Internet don’t have an impact, they do. And the impact is initially asymmetrical over social strata and geography as the effects widen out from the introduction points. But eventually, it levels out, helping the pre-existing cultural and anti-cultural processes equally. And mass public scepticism of climate-change doesn’t come from knowledge; no encyclopaedia or WUWT required. It is (measurably) an *instinctive* reaction against the aggressive culture of climate catastrophism, just as mass public support is likewise a belief in same that is not founded upon knowledge. Of course there are knowledgeable sceptics too, but in population terms they are immeasurably small. As in fact, are the knowledgeable orthodox too. Unfortunately, climate policy per nation (e.g. renewables deployment) follows the cultural attitudes of their publics, which means the knowledgeable from either side are having no impact.


  7. This excerpt is one of the most chilling to have been written in an age of nominally freedom:
    “Weakened by the uncontrolled dissemination of information and attendant fracturing of authority, the institutions that ratify particular pictures of what is going on in the world must not merely assert a monopoly of knowledge, but place a moratorium on the asking of questions and noticing of patterns.”

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Excellent post JIT and thanks for the link to the Mathew Crawford piece. It even had a useful bit of practical advice for me. As a canman who raids beverage containers out of dumpsters, I can’t believe I never figured out his technique for emptying jugs by swirling them to create a whirlpool effect. I’m amazed how well it works on two liter plastic bottles.


  9. An update on story three from this piece (via WUWT via Steve Milloy), the fish terminally confused by elevated CO2 – or were they?

    The “odd little bro pocket” of Clements, Sundin, Clark & Jutfelt have published an article showing an “extreme” decline effect in studies on the effect of CO2 on fish behaviour. They do not say that the early data was made up, but:

    It is important to note that the early studies published in 2009 to 2010, and some subsequent papers from the same authors, have recently been questioned for their scientific validity … When all papers authored or coauthored by at least one of the lead investigators of those early studies were removed from the dataset (n = 41 studies, 45%), the decline effect was no longer apparent from 2012 to 2019.

    A bit of an ouch.

    “Meta-analysis reveals an extreme “decline effect” in the impacts of ocean acidification on fish behavior”


  10. “Science issues expression of concern nine months after one of its reporters uncovers potential misconduct”

    Science has issued an expression of concern for a 2014 paper on the harmful effects of ocean acidification on fish and coral after the first author of the article was accused of fabricating data in the study and other research.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. Jit – Thanks for the update –

    “As Science itself reported in May of 2021, a group of four concerned scientists:
    asked three funders that together spent millions on Dixson’s and Munday’s work—the Australian Research Council (ARC), the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), and the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH)—to investigate possible fraud in 22 papers.
    The request, which they shared with a Science reporter, rests on what they say is evidence of manipulation in publicly available raw data files for two papers, one published in Science, the other in Nature Climate Change, combined with remarkably large and “statistically impossible” effects from CO2 reported in many of the other papers. They also provided testimony from former members of the Dixson and Munday labs, some of whom monitored Dixson’s activities and concluded she made up data.”

    well at least it was only “millions” – that’s a relief or (leave reef)

    wonder if Judith Curry knew her/them – was written by a group at Georgia Institute of Technology led by Danielle Dixson


  12. Update to the update – reef edition (with a hat tip to WUWT):

    Star marine ecologist committed misconduct, university says
    Finding against Danielle Dixson vindicates whistleblowers who questioned high-profile work on ocean acidification

    Also at Retraction Watch:

    However, despite the URL, the retracted paper was not about acidification, but about reef smells repelling recruitment. It has been cited over 200 times.

    Science says:

    Like most of Dixson’s experimental work, the study relied partly on a so-called choice flume, an apparatus in which a fish can choose whether to swim toward a chemical signal. The committee calculated that to produce the paper’s data, which Dixson said she had collected herself, she would have had to carry out 12,920 fluming trials, generating some 860,000 data points and taking 1194 hours of observation time. The ecologist would have needed 11,628 liters of sea water to flow through the flume, which the draft report says she had to collect 2 kilometers from the shore. “It is highly unlikely that she had the time available to do all the experiments and trials as detailed in the paper,” the panel wrote.

    It seems that we are compelled to assume honesty and integrity in science, which is populated by humans whose motivations, like all humans, include greed and ambition and who are often lazy. And incompetent data fabricators. I can’t imagine what made anyone suspicious:

    (Fig. 3a from the retracted paper)

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Editorial update:

    I really hope that the proportion of scientists prepared to make up data to further their careers or causes is tiny. It is actually really offensive to me to think that anyone would ever even consider such a move. The idea would have been inconceivable to me as a student. If you had suggested the possibility to me, I would have rejected it out of hand. “Scientists don’t do that,” naive me would have said. “What would be the point?” Because the sole point of doing experiments seemed to me to be to find out the truth about the world.

    There will be dedicated and honest scientists out there who have never had a paper published in Science, never pulled in the big grants, and who were never invited to the White House to brief its incumbent. They had ideas, did experiments, had not very significant or non-significant results, and moved on. They struggled to get good positions or grants, but kept their honesty and integrity intact.

    And then we have the other kind. As I tyro I merely assumed that some scientists were just a lot smarter than the others. Harder working. Inspired, lucky. Well, you don’t have to be any of these things if you just make up the numbers.

    It goes without saying that the type of scientist we need if our goal as a species is to find out about the world around us is the first kind. The second kind can only selfishly climb over the others on their paths to temporary glory and eventual disgrace.

    Sad times for science perhaps. But science is, like nature, inevitable. At some stage the truth will be known, even if it may take years or decades.

    Liked by 2 people

  14. Jit,

    Reading this prompted me to look up Peter Ridd’s entry on DeSmog. It was so good of them to collate all of the things that Ridd has said regarding coral reef resilience and the poor quality control he had witnessed in his colleagues’ work, both of which are now fully vindicated. Still, it won’t help him get his job or reputation back and it won’t prevent the Institute for Strategic Dialogue from branding everything he has said as disinformation.

    Liked by 3 people

  15. JIT don’t despair, ‘‘twas always thus”. Science has always been characterised as two steps forward, one step back. Backward steps are in part produced by those with an agenda, those willing to fudge results. There have always been those not content with the drudgery of normal science, those willing to accept or produce spurious data in order to support a more exciting and publishable result. Eventually a proportion of these scoundrels are found out and (sometimes) savagely penalised. We throw up our hands in horror, but ignore those still producing false conclusions. Climate “science” immediately springs to mind. Why didn’t, for example, Phil Jones check the obviously suspect Chinese information that led them to deny the existence of anomalous warmth within cities?

    Liked by 1 person

  16. Update to the reef science story: “Journal declines to retract fish research paper despite fraud finding”

    “Researcher’s university had found fabrication and called for retraction”

    The Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences says it will not retract a paper on anemone fish behavior even though a lengthy university investigation found it was made up.

    Yeah but no but…

    Liked by 1 person

  17. “Dixson and her lawyer did not respond to a request for comment on the editor’s note. Scott is currently on leave, according to an out-of-office message.

    UD has not publicly identified the third paper it wants retracted, but the panel’s draft report suggests it is a paper published by Munday, Dixson, and others in Nature Climate Change in 2014. The report noted that its data file, just like the one in the Science paper, had “serious issues regarding the datasheet files, with patterns of copying and pasting of datasheets in both—signatures of fabrication and falsification of data.” It’s unclear if that paper is currently under investigation by Nature Climate Change.”

    always handy to have a lawyer on call.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.