Researches in Perth have plans to explore a deep-sea canyon, hoping to find information about climate change. Well, if that keeps them in a job, that’s nice for them. But how scientific is this research?
They say that very little is known about this canyon, but still they think that they can get useful information about climate change. How? You can only get that information by comparing the situation now with the situation 50 or 100 years ago. But they don’t have that information. So they will have to send a robot down there again in 10 years and 20 years and 30 years and then compare the data. But obviously that’s not what they plan to do. They will interpret the gathered information and come up with a conclusion.
But that’s conclusion per definition will be based on unproven assumptions and highly selective data from other places. But how can they know that this canyon can be compared with other places? They can’t, but they assume they can.
These scientists are not remotely interested in facts. They just want to find things that support the general opinion. But that’s not science! Science should be about facts, but unfortunately nowadays it’s just about proving a theory. That usually means that everything that proves the theory wrong will be thrown out and ignored. And that won’t be any different this time.
But this research will be funded by a billionaire, who doesn’t know what else to do with his money. So as long as this fancy hobbyism isn’t funded by the tax payers I suppose we should let the scientists play with their toys. By the time they have analysed the data few people will still believe in climate change, so then it will show that their work was utterly useless.