National Geographic doesn't understand the Scientific Method

An Article in the March Issue of the National Geographic with the words by Joel Achenbach under the heading

Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?

Source: Joanne Nova
After some anecdotes about flouridisation, Mr Achenbach proceeds:
We live in an age when all manner of scientific knowledge—from the safety of fluoride and vaccines to the reality of climate change—faces organized and often furious opposition. Empowered by their own sources of information and their own interpretations of research, doubters have declared war on the consensus of experts. 
Some more stuff re GMOs and such and then
In principle that’s what science is for. “Science is not a body of facts,” says geophysicist Marcia McNutt, who once headed the U.S. Geological Survey and is now editor of Science, the prestigious journal. “Science is a method for deciding whether what we choose to believe has a basis in the laws of nature or not.” But that method doesn’t come naturally to most of us. 
To this simple mind, to include Science and belief in the same sentence is....well....anti-science. So, what is the scientific method?

The Oxford Dictionary defines the scientific method as:
method of procedure that has characterised natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observationmeasurement, and experiment, and the formulation,testing, and modification of hypotheses: 
criticism is the backbone of the scientific method
Mr Achenbach writes:
Most of us do that by relying on personal experience and anecdotes, on stories rather than statistics.
Then later adds:
Even for scientists, the scientific method is a hard discipline. Like the rest of us, they’re vulnerable to what they call confirmation bias—the tendency to look for and see only evidence that confirms what they already believe. 
Tim Ball, in his book "The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science" details the beginnings of the "Corruption:"
Maurice Strong and speculated in his opening speech to Rio Earth Summit in 1990:
What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries?... In order to save the planet the group decides: Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilisations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility bring this about?
Tim Ball then refers to the the Club of Rome's report The First Global Revolution:
In searching for a common in enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. 
and later: (link)
"....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose." (bold added)
After formalising the IPCC, Strong had two objectives:
Create the science needed to "prove" human CO2 was the problem and then convince the public if they didn't act, the result would be catastrophic. 
So here we have the reverse of the scientific method.  They created an answer and then went looking for proof. Thousands of scientists have been funded to try to prove the AGW hypothesis (which, by the way has been falsified multiple times)

Joanne Nova wrote: (Link)
Thousands of scientists have been funded to find a connection between carbon missions and the climate. Hardly any have been funded to find the opposite. Throw 30 billion dollars at one question and how could bright, dedicated people not find 800 pages worth of connections, links, predictions, projections and scenarios. (What's amazing is that they haven't found empirical evidence.) (bold added)
So, seeing the reversal of the scientific method by the IPCC brings us to another of Mr Achenbach's lines:
Sometimes scientists fall short of the ideals of the scientific method. 
Consider, therefore, the result he arrives at:
Last fall the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which consists of hundreds of scientists operating under the auspices of the United Nations, released its fifth report in the past 25 years. This one repeated louder and clearer than ever the consensus of the world’s scientists.
Did Mr Achenbach read all the scientific reports or did he just read the Summary for Policy Makers, a document which is not generally supported by the scientific data but one that is slowly reached - line by line - in a meeting of government representatives?

THIS is revealed by the IPCC on various sites eg (LINK)
The quintessence of this work, the Summary for Policymakers, has been approved line by line by member governments at the 12th Session of IPCC WG III in Berlin, Germany (7-11 April 2014).
Donna Laframboise says, of this process: (link)
Scientific truth isn’t negotiated in the dead of night behind closed doors.  
At the meeting, one sentence after another has been projected onto large screens. Diplomats, bureaucrats, and politicians from dozens of UN nations have haggled, horse traded, and negotiated. Eventually, phrasing that everyone can live with has been agreed upon. Then they’ve moved on to the next sentence. 
The meeting is closed to the public. It is closed to the media. No minutes are kept. 
Did Mr Achenbach know of this process when he wrote:
The idea that hundreds of scientists from all over the world would collaborate on such a vast hoax is laughable—scientists love to debunk one another. It’s very clear, however, that organizations funded in part by the fossil fuel industry have deliberately tried to undermine the public’s understanding of the scientific consensus by promoting a few skeptics. (bold added)
Hundreds of scientists? Or Hundreds of representatives of governments?

Wait up! Who is funded by the fossil fuel industry? The alarmists receive Big Oil funding -eg (link)
The think tank formerly known as the Pew Center on Global Climate Change will remain independent despite drawing most of its funding from energy companies, the center’s president said today. (bold added)
And another example from the many - Woods Hole: (link)
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution is playing a leading role in raising the alarm.... 
In the coming days, according to officials at Woods Hole, the institution is set to sign agreements with Saudi Aramco, the primary oil company owned by the Saudi government, to study the potential for “hydrocarbons” in the Red Sea. It is also preparing to ink a deal for a “simulation study” on behalf of the Italian oil company Eni, while it has half a dozen other proposals in the works with unnamed corporations, the officials said. (bold added)

Now, as this humble blogger has previously stated: We have not ,nor have we ever, accepted funding from Big Oil. Mind you, if it's OK for them, it's OK for us.....go ahead, make my day....The bank account details are at the top of the page.

Bach to Mr Affenbach:
The news media give abundant attention to such mavericks, naysayers, professional controversialists, and table thumpers. The media would also have you believe that science is full of shocking discoveries made by lone geniuses. Not so. The (boring) truth is that it usually advances incrementally, through the steady accretion of data and insights gathered by many people over many years. So it has been with the consensus on climate change. That’s not about to go poof with the next thermometer reading.
The news media does give abundant attention to "naysayers, professional controversialists, and table thumpers." Yep! The "naysayers, professional controversialists, and table thumpers" of the Alarmist networks. However most news media have almost closed their pages to the writings of the sceptics side of the debate. Some have actually declared that their pages are closed to alternative (or as they offendingly say "denier) science.

The NY Times has even gone in for character assassination of a well respected scientist who recently was the co-author of a paper showing the errors of the IPCC's GCMs. (Link - Jo Nova)

In the same post, Joanne wrote:
Government-funded science is often used to increase government revenue. That conflict of interest is almost never disclosed.
Even more scary, is the wisdom shown by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his farewell address in January 1961:

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present -- and is gravely to be regarded. 
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. (bold added)

As I said above, to include Science and belief in the same sentence is....well....anti-science, and now Mr Achebach writes: "consensus on climate change." Scientific Consensus is an oxymoron.

Mr Achenbach babble continues and he reaches a question: "How to penetrate the bubble? How to convert climate skeptics?"
He says: "Throwing more facts at them doesn’t help." What? Facts like:

  • there is no data showing CO2 is causing dangerous climate change;
  • Temperature rises before atmospheric CO2;
  • There has been no warming for more than 18 years;
Affenbach again:
In the climate debate the consequences of doubt are likely global and enduring. In the U.S., climate change skeptics have achieved their fundamental goal of halting legislative action to combat global warming.
Gee, is that right? They have halted the legislation  and the global warming has also halted?

Looks like a win-win.

Another of Mr Achenbach's lines:
 In science it’s not a sin to change your mind when the evidence demands it. 
Dr David Evans, a true believer in the climate hoax  until he looked at the Ice Core data and realised that carbon dioxide was innocent, wrote something similar: (link-edited extract)
 I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector. 
When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects. 
But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. 
As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

And yet, Alarmists keep putting out anti-science articles and papers. Alarmist journalists keep writing pieces like Mr Achenbach's piece. Heading for the conference in Paris in December, the Alarm keeps getting shriller and more illogical.

It's no wonder, due to the damage made to science by these alarmists, due to the anti-science pushed by the IPCC, people are starting to doubt science.