Robert Onfray, August 2024
In May two years ago, I first engaged with the editor of Australian Rural and Regional News about a story on the issues facing modern science. Our discussion focused on climate change, where I expressed my skepticism about the reputed strong link between man-made CO2 emissions and climate change. I argued that much of the published climate science either mistakes correlation for causation or heavily relies on modelling without robust data, often bypassing the scientific method by employing what’s known as “detection and attribution.”
Detection refers to demonstrating that climate has changed in a statistically significant way, without necessarily identifying the cause. Attribution, on the other hand, involves attributing the most likely causes for the detected change with a certain level of confidence. It’s clear to anyone with a basic understanding of scientific principles how this approach can be manipulated. And manipulated it is—to such an extent that we hear daily about so-called scientific findings predicting an impending climate catastrophe.
Our conversation meandered through various topics, including examples from other scientific fields like the Great Barrier Reef and forest science. Fiona, the editor, was initially skeptical of my perspective. However, she eventually conceded that if the abuse of science were as widespread as I suggested, surely there would be active scientists willing to support my claims.
This led us to discuss the political narratives and the broader politicization of science. I explained that the only individuals willing to publicly discuss the flaws in the scientific community were those who had retired. I had spoken to several working scientists, primarily in public institutions, who were unwilling to go on record—even anonymously—due to the potential repercussions: loss of employment, public humiliation, or even cancellation. The case of Peter Ridd, who was dismissed from James Cook University for not being “collegiate,” exemplifies this issue. Ridd had dared to publicly criticize the quality of scientific work being produced on the Great Barrier Reef.
Over the past two years, I have quietly compiled a significant body of evidence detailing instances of research misconduct and fraud, including data fabrication and manipulation. My story highlights how scientific research and public policies are often swayed by special interest groups and political agendas, leading to manipulation, censorship, and the suppression of data. I argue that the scientific method—rooted in questioning and evidence-based inquiry—has been compromised by cultural forces and career incentives.
The current system of self-regulation within universities lacks transparency and is riddled with conflicts of interest. There is also an overreliance on the h-index as a metric for academic success, which prioritises the quantity of publications over their quality. These systemic issues undermine the pursuit of genuine scientific discovery, leading to a decline in groundbreaking work and a rise in superficial or misleading research. You can read my story here:
Is too much pounding the table the problem with science today?
Robert Onfray is an Australian historical author and forester, currently settled in Hervey Bay and working on his next book, on the forestry history of Fraser Island before it all disappears. Robert’s book, Fires, Farms and Forests – A human history of Surrey Hills, north-west Tasmania is available from www.robertonfray.com, along with many other articles about the Australian country and its history.
