I thought I knew what “science” was about: the crafting of hypotheses that could be tested and refined through observation via studies that were challenged and replicated by the broader community until the hypothesis is generally accepted or rejected by the broader community.
But apparently “popular science” works differently, if the July 2012 article by Tom Clynes in the periodical of that name is any guide [I will link the article when it is online]. In an article called “the Battle,” Clynes serves up an amazing skewering of skeptics that the most extreme environmental group might have blushed at publishing. After reading this article, it seems that “popular science” consists mainly of initiating a sufficient number of ad hominem attacks against those with whom one disagrees such that one is no longer required to even answer their scientific criticisms.
The article is a sort of hall-of-fame of every ad hominem attack made on skeptics – tobacco lawyers, Holocaust Deniers, the Flat Earth Society, oil company funding, and the Koch Brothers all make an appearance.
Of course, not once in the article is the mainstream skeptic scientific position even given. If Clynes is unable to parse it out or understand it, it certainly would have been possible to quote someone who could. But that would seem to defeat the purpose. According to Clynes sources, there is no skeptic position, just a series of “information missiles” and Internet memes backed with threats against scientists.
Those who are not actually involved in the details of the debate could be forgiven for believing that skeptics have not real scientific position, since folks like Clynes go out of the way never, ever to write about it. It is the first rule of climate journalism — never quote a skeptic’s scientific position. If you have to discuss a skeptic, quote only the most extreme rhetoric of the political ones like Rush Limbaugh or Marc Morano. Never, ever quote something scientific from a Richard Lindzen or Roy Spencer or even a science-based amateur like Steve McIntyre.
You do understand what science “was” about. It’s just the new politically based science scare tactics and constant use of the word “may” that you seem to have trouble with! Science is now a series of guesses about terrifying outcomes that “could” or “may” happen. Perhaps we will one day return to the old ways. Maybe.