It says something truly ugly about science as it's practiced today that the authors' call for requiring fallibility in this grand unified theory domain is motiv

It says something truly ugly about science as it's practiced today that the authors' call for requiring fallibility in this grand unified theory domain is motivated in part by pointing out that the reverse will call into question the grand unfalsifiable climate change consensus (or as I uncharitably add, gravy train, $4 billion a year for climate "science" as of the Climategate release; BTW, seems like they're lying about ocean acidification as well by ignoring 70+ years of inconvenient facts: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/23/touchy-feely-science-one-chart-suggests-theres-a-phraud-in-omitting-ocean-acidification-data-in-congressional-testimony/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/23/touchy-feely-science-o... (the plus comes from mention that recordings, evidently not systematized NOAA ones, started in 1850). ADDED: when I went back to the article I noticed they explicitly used the phrase "climate change", meaning they also have bought into (at least for the purposes of publishing an item in the world's #1 journal of science) the unfalsifiability of climate "science" as it's now practiced. Rather than e.g. noting that the lack of required falsifiability in climate "science" could well be infecting physics, and for that matter, why stop there, as long as it's important (where, as I note, "important" starts with getting grants from the usual suspects).