Russ Steele
Nature, the widely respected science journal, has a feature story and an unsigned editorial in its latest issue addressing The Heartland Institute’s contribution to the global debate over climate change. The
articles can be read for free here and here.
You can read the full defence of the Heartland's 800 page report Climate Change Reconsidered by Joseph Bast the institutes President here.
In my mind Bast makes the most important observation at the end of his analysis of Natures crtitique.
Finally, the editors declare they are in pursuit of “a theory that can explain observations of
the world,” whereas the skeptics seem content to point out gaps in that theory. “The
Heartland Institute and its ilk,” they say, “are not trying to build a theory of anything.” Well,
where to begin?
I am not a scientist, and it certainly is not my place to tell the editors of such an esteemed
publication as Nature what they ought to be about. But it is my understanding of the
scientific method that it proceeds by the falsification of hypotheses, not their defense by
every means possible, which is what Nature and regrettably other leading science journals
have resorted to in the case of man-made climate change. The goal ought not to be to
defend a hypothesis, but to test it, and if it fails, to consider competing hypotheses and test
those just as rigorously.
Nature, it seems to this nonscientist observer, has lost its way. Until the journal opens its
eyes, it will not be a serious voice on climate science.
