Inferring and Explaining

103 The Best Explanation? In the case of the rivals focusing on a statistical fuke, I could argue against their plausibility by focusing on their mathematical improbability. No such technique exists for dealing with the rivals t 3 , t 4 , and t 5 . Nevertheless, I want to argue that they are all implausible, at least when com- pared to the original explanation that there exists practically universal endorsement of the consensus view regarding climate change among trained climate scientists. Consider first the journal that Oreskes’s article appeared in, Science . Te journal is one of the most highly respected academic journals in the world. Tey have a huge interest in polic- ing themselves, since their name is on the cover of every article they publish. Next, we must face the charge that the Insti- tute for Scientifc Information is somehowbiased. Again, we are dealing with a very prestigious and widely used reference tool, which is now oper- atedby a for-proft corporation.Te ISI has a huge stake, both its reputationand itsfnancial outlook, in being regarded as absolutely trustworthy.Tus they too can be expected to police themselves. Te samemaybe argued forProfessorOreskes herself. She is a highly respected scholar, educa- tor, and university administrator. Her own pro- fessional reputation is on the line. She would be insane not to carefully ensure the accuracy of an article in a major journal that was guaranteed to be read and debated by a wide audience of sci- entists and indeed, those outside of the sciences. Finally, we come to perhaps the most serious of the charges in our rivals. Perhaps all climate science is biased against critics of the consensus view. As I said in an earlier chapter, these sorts of conscious or unconscious conspiracy theories are ofered by critics of natural selection. I want to concede that something like that can happen, and the history of science tells us that it has hap- pened on occasion. In away, the criticismof Sem- melweis’s theory by skeptics of the entrenched generation had shades of this mechanism. But with all this conceded, I have to tell you that this sort of thing is very, very rare. Most natural sci- entists respect the need for skepticismfromtheir peers. Studies challenging the consensus view, in one sense, have a better chance of being pub- lished, if for no other reason than that they are saying something new. Furthermore, we live in the age of information. Muchmore is being pub- lished, andmanymore venues for peer-reviewed academic publishing exist now. Tus the fact that the ISI database did not include even one skeptical defense leads me to believe that there just aren’t many skeptics out there, at least not within mainstream climate science. statIstICs exerCIses 1. For the fall quarter of 2008, Eastern had 3,666 students. When you break down that num- ber on the basis of sex, you discover something a little surprising. 2,344 of those students were female, while only 1,322 were male. Why would it have been a bad idea to take the 2008 institutional data from Eastern as telling us anything signifcant about gender and college attendance nationally? 2. Why do we almost never see samples that are truly (technically) random?