WELCOME

Nichols argues that science is inherently adversarial. So much so,

March 22, 2017 by Ella Pickett

Nichols argues that science is inherently adversarial. So much so, in fact, that his book's title is a rebuke to such claims. "To be able to make such a point is to be a victim of a vicious circle," Nichols writes. "A victim of a vicious circle is to be a member of a privileged class who is the victim of political injustice—a vicious circle, of course, not unlike the one that allows people to exploit their power to the best of their ability."

That is, to be a victim of political injustice, an individual must be "a victim of political injustice," and one who "wants to do nothing but hurt the power of the government" is "a victim of a vicious circle."

In other words, this is not a case of "the poor are the victims." Nichols' premise is that scientists are the victim of "the vicious circle" that makes them so vulnerable. He's right, of course, because we've heard so much about the political side of science lately, but the truth is that they are also the victims of political corruption and fraud. I'm not going to argue that they are victims, but I'll provide some evidence for their claim.

Nichols' book begins with a quote from George Herbert Walker Mead, a prominent scientist and one of the leading deniers of climate science:

"The more you see it, the more you realize what a false alarm it is!"

Nichols, of course, has to admit that the public's attention has been diverted from many of the most obvious problems of climate science with the "proving" that it is true. He does so not by saying that climate change is a hoax, but by insisting that "this is a public problem in a world where many people are aware of it, even though no one has the best of intentions about it, and there are no credible scientific tests of it."

So how does he make this claim, let alone refute it? He does so by offering no evidence that makes him a false alarm expert. He ignores numerous studies demonstrating such things as the robustness of atmospheric carbon dioxide. He ignores the fact that a huge body of studies has found that humans have caused climate change as much or more than they have in the past, and he ignores the fact that he himself has done just that. He ignores the fact that he's actually a prominent climate scientist, and that he is a good writer and a good scholar. He ignores the fact that he's now a prominent climate