One of the most interesting/unfortunate/dangerous aspects of climate “science” is how it has attempted to redefine how science is performed. Real classical science follows the scientific method, not by taking votes and winning popularity contests.
- Make an observation
- Formulate a falsifiable hypothesis
- Formulate and perform experiments
- Collect data from experimentation
- Analyze the data from experimentation
- Allow the data to determine the conclusion through accepting or rejecting the “Null Hypothesis.”
Climate “science” is the only science I know of that doesn’t rely on the scientific method. Climate science is a computer “model” based “Science.” It doesn’t rely upon experimentation, it relies upon simulations, “peer review,” and phony and misleading claims of “consensus.” Worst of all, the IPCC admits what there are huge areas of this “science” where extremely significant variables are virtually unknown. How can you have a “consensus” on the whole when so many of the parts aren’t understood? Understanding the role of solar radiation is listed as “very low.” That is like having a “consensus” on a weight-loss theory without understanding excercise and caloric intake.
One of the main problems with the “consensus” approach is that this is an almost entirely Government funded “science,” which has allowed/condoned intimidation, threats, bullying and harassment to influence people’s opinions. It is easy to reach a consensus if you fire, threaten or prosecute anyone that disagrees with the pre-determined “consensus.” That form of “science” defined the Soviet Union’s approach to science, which had disastrous results. Any real scientist should be horrified by the well-documented actions of the “Climate Alarmists/Bullies.“
“All science is numbers,” “the Greeks determined the earth was round because the numbers told them the earth was round, not because people believed it was flat.” Real science simply isn’t done by consensus, it is done through the application the scientific method.
Other problems with “Consensus.”
- The “Consensus” excludes those who disagree with it.
- If a scientific “Consensus” is truly valid, models would be able to accurately forecast the future outcome. Climate models fail miserably.
- The “Consensus” consists of a highly biased population of “self-selected groups.”
- Most if not all “deniers” and/or “skeptics” are part of the “Consensus.” The debate isn’t about whether or not the climate is changing, climate change is the norm, or if man influences the climate, it is about how much anthropogenic CO2 impacts the climate.
- The “consensus” survey was very poorly designed.
- Research money only goes to the “researchers” that promote the “consensus.”
- Other surveys show just the opposite, that there isn’t a “consensus.”
- Journalists haven’t fairly reported on this issue.
- Professional Organizations, not their members, tend to support the “consensus.”
- “Science by authority” isn’t science, it is dogma and propaganda.
- Science doesn’t progress through “consensus,” science progresses through “falsification,” and rejecting the “consensus/null hypothesis.”
- As the introductory graphic highlights, there are extreme financial conflicts of interest regarding maintaining the “consensus.”
- “Consensus,” and “politicization of science,” are one in the same.
- Climategate emails and other sources expose a corruption of the “peer/pal review process.“
- The proponents of the “consensus” are well funded and organized propagandists.
- There is no “consensus” with the people that count, the common sense voters.
- These people are part of the “consensus.”