Description:

Data. Driving science. Information decisions. Enriching humanity. The goals of the scientific community. But what do we do in reality when data does not support our belief? Do we allow data to drive science? Or take a human response? Ignore the data? Toss it out? Or make excuses for the data? The history of science is ripe with examples. After all, scientists are human. The expanding universe debate lasted decades with severe career consequences to those proposing it. Climate change is another example. Current. Lasting decades. Why? The debate can end tomorrow for the same reason the expanding universe debate ended. Cause was shown to precede the effect supporting the expanding-universe theory. But not contracting-theory. Does such data exist for climate-change theory? Real-time (not proxy) validated records from seven different global climate centers. Records spanning sixty years. Records, the highest authority in climate science. Each showing hard results (p-values less than 0.0000001) verified by every climate center in the world. Do changes in carbon dioxide precede consistent changes in global temperature? Not a model. Our actual biosphere. If precedence (cause-effect) exists, then theory is supported. If precedence isn’t there using validated records and method, then theory is not supported. An absolute test. Are we afraid to look? Do we want to look? That is what the participants in the Town Hall will be asked after discussing the human element of being a scientist. Strap in for our struggle to be an inquisitive scientist.