Scientific method for K-12: a model climate scientists should follow

Scientific method for K-12: Some climate scientists could learn from this.

Those of us who follow climate science know that often times basic steps in the scientific method are not followed.

Recently I was Googling for some information on the scientific method and wanted to find something simple and very easy to understand.  I found exactly what I was looking for at Chariho Regional School District in Southern Rhode Island. There’s a nice web page titled The Scientific Method: A Way to Solve a Problem in addition to the graphic above. It is written quite clearly and is displayed in nice fonts and colors so it should be very easy for anyone to understand. So simple, in fact, that even climate scientists could follow it.

Here’s a few salient points made in the web page and my comments below each one in italics:

• You need to think up an experiment that will prove or disprove your hypothesis.
   
  Have the climate scientists proved their hypothesis or made any attempt to disprove it?  So far it seems the best we’ve got is “we can’t find any other reason for warming so it must be CO2.
   
• Scientists write out a method (some people call this a procedure) like a recipe.  Materials needed are listed and the steps of the experiment are written out clearly.  Other scientists may want to do your experiment.  They need clear directions to follow. [emphasis mine]
   
  This step is certainly not followed by many climate scientists on the alarmist team.  Take a look at Climate Audit, search on Hockey Stick Studies, and you’ll see that data, code, methods and documentation are regularly closely guarded by the alarmist team, data is fudged, and methods aren’t documented. Even one of the leading climate scientists, Gavin Schmidt, argues against standard practices for software development (see item 5 in my About page under the heading “Why I’m a Realist”).
   
• It is very important that you follow your procedure carefully, make good observations while performing the experiment, and keep accurate records.
   
  We know there are issues with procedures not being followed carefully, because some aren’t even documented (see Climate Audit again).  We know from Anthony Watt’s Surfacestation project that the observations are anything but good, and we have a pretty good idea that accurate records aren’t kept (see Watts Up With That: Weather Station Data: raw or adjusted?)
   
• Was my hypothesis proven?”  These could be as simple as “yes” the hypothesis was correct, or “no” the hypothesis was incorrect.  If your hypothesis is proven to be incorrect, you will want to find out what was wrong.  You may even develop a hypothesis about the hypothesis!!
  
  It seems the climate scientists design their experiments to always result in a “yes” for CO2 causing warming. If the model doesn’t fit the historical data, then adjust the data (see Watts Up With That: Weather Station Data: raw or adjusted?)
   

If we can expect our K-12 children to follow the scientific method, why can’t we expect the same from climate scientists?