Here's something That probably sailed over most heads...
as an sntidote to " Bad Science" or "Science by Consensus "

http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/GW-Aliens-Crichton.html
. .
/...
Just as we have established a tradition of double-blinded research to
determine drug efficacy, we must institute double-blinded research in other
policy areas as well. Certainly the increased use of computer models, such
as GCMs, cries out for the separation of those who make the models from
those who verify them. The fact is that the present structure of science is
entrepreneurial, with individual investigative teams vying for funding from
organizations that all too often have a clear stake in the outcome of the
research-or appear to, which may be just as bad. This is not healthy for
science.

Sooner or later, we must form an independent research institute in this
country. It must be funded by industry, by government, and by private
philanthropy, both individuals and trusts. The money must be pooled, so that
investigators do not know who is paying them. The institute must fund more
than one team to do research in a particular area, and the verification of
results will be a foregone requirement: teams will know their results will
be checked by other groups. In many cases, those who decide how to gather
the data will not gather it, and those who gather the data will not analyze
it. If we were to address the land temperature records with such rigor, we
would be well on our way to an understanding of exactly how much faith we
can place in global warming, and therefore with what seriousness we must
address
this.


[ OT ] Is Environmentalism a religion?

In article , Dan
writes:


Don't take my word for it, though. Here are some remarks by Michael
Crichton (author of "The Terminal Man" and "The Andromeda Strain") that are
very thought-provoking.

-- Stinger