by Judith Curry
I am a strong believer that academic freedom is essential for scientific progress, and such freedom includes the right to be “wrong.” In fact, scientists can often learn much from failed experiments and failed predictions. However, for regulatory science and science for policy, should there be some premium on (and some reward for) actually being “right”? How can we know what is “right” in the short term? Shi-Ling Hsu has a provocative new essay that advocates an entirely different path for evaluating climate science that draws upon an institution that is truly independent: markets.
.

There appears need for much more effort on grappling with both with major statistical issues involved (as highlighted by Dempster and Scafetta) as well as identifying natural causes that can have strong impacts on climate far beyond what is currently included in climate models (per Scafetta, and Svensmark).
As a case in point, lets examine one of Nicola Scafetta’s papers, which ties in with our previous threads on attribution of decadal variability.
Continue reading →