Benjamin Franklin wept

Franklin was not just a statesman, but one of the most famous scientists of his day.  His early experiments in electricity were dangerous, but led to not just major advances in the understanding of current flow, but his invention of the Lightning Rod has saved countless lives.

Franklin, of course, was a Pennsylvanian.  How the scientific standards of his beloved state have fallen.

Penn State's Professor Donald Brown has published an astonishing "scientific" paper, saying that despite the lack of statistically significant data linking climate change to increased tornado activity, scientists are nonetheless ethically bound to report that they are:

And so, in summary, when it comes to tornadoes and climate change there is reason to believe that tornado caused destruction will increase due to human induced climate change and also reason for doubt.

Many commenting on the connection between climate change and destructive tornado equate the lack of proof with the lack of any scientific evidence. In so doing they are implicitly claiming only absolute proof counties as evidence. Yet, as we have seen, it would be untruthful to conclude there is no scientific basis for connecting climate change to more damaging tornadoes. Climate change will clearly enhance certain atmospheric conditions that should lead to more intense and frequent tornadoes while possibly diminishing others. Evidence of a connection exists despite lack of conclusive proof.

Then show us your (statistically valid) data.

This is not just nonsense, but quite dangerous nonsense.  The history of science is littered with the carcases of beautiful - even compelling - ideas that simply never had data show them to be likely.  And so, science has quite rightly passed them by, although no doubt sometimes with a longing glance cast over the shoulder.  It is truly said that the scientist proposes, and nature disposes.  If it's true, then the data will support it.  If the data doesn't support it, then you move on.

I left a comment to that effect on the Penn State server.  Comments are moderated there, and so I reproduce the comment here in the event that Dr. Brown finds he can't take the heat, but doesn't want to get out of the Climate Change kitchen.  Sadly, this seems frequent at the pro-AGW sites.

Dr. Brown, the reason that science developed a high reputation in the Western World - as opposed, say, to politics - is because it relied on data.  Hypotheses not supported by data, especially those not supported by statistically significant data have traditionally been rejected by scientists past.  This has, as I'm sure you well know, been the direct cause of scientific advancement and public esteem.

And you refuse to reject your hypothesis, even while freely admitting that you have no statistically significant data to support it.  Indeed, you seem cheerful in making this astonishing (for a scientist) admission.

And so, you are simultaneously attempting to wrap yourself in the hard won prestige of past scientists while engaging is what appears to be politics.  If this is the norm, what is to keep public support in the sciences from falling?

Another question is whether your article here was in fact able to pass peer review.  Even in this degraded age, one hopes not.

My final question is whether your argument could not have been used to defend phlogiston, or phrenology, or eugenics.  Trofim Lysenko could not be reached for comment.

I'm afraid that this is nonsense of the most astonishingly pathetic caliber.  Please give us a higher caliber nonsense in the future.

A bit harsh, I'm afraid.  But quite frankly, it is nonsense, and it is a shockingly pathetic caliber of nonsense.  Until the people who spout this are regularly called out for it, we will continue to see this low-quality drivel.  Franklin would have scoffed.

Data, please.  Or later, please.  Right now, the Null Hypothesis is beating you like a rented mule.

(via)