Point 1) Climate Science started with the conclusion that man-made CO2 causes warming, and then set about to find anecdotal evidence to support that claim. Evidence of this is that none of the computer models can demonstrate that relationship, nor do any properly run experiments. Additionally, conflicting data like the N Pole losing ice and the S Pole gaining ice is simply glossed over, and the focus is directed towards the observation that favors the conclusion. Lastly, only the “adjusted” data sets show warming. If adjustments are made for the heat island effect and solar radiation, there is no notable warming. Long-term, consistent, continual thermometer data show no warming either.
Point 2) Climate “science” is extremely hostile towards anyone that is critical, and the hostility is well documented. This hostility is so endemic to the climate alarmists that they verbally smear opponents during congressional testimony, and put their smears in writing.
Point #3) Uses vague jargon to confuse and evade. Real science uses terms like “scientific method,” “rejecting the Null at a 95% confidence level,” “R-Squared of 0.80,” “experimentation,” “conclusion” and back everything with numbers. Climate science uses terms like “computer model/simulation,” “consensus,” “scientific organizations agree,” and “peer review.” Climate “science” is run more like a popularity contest than a real science.
Point #4) Climate “science” makes grandiose claims that go beyond the evidence. The endless “tipping points” that have come and gone, as well as the “100% of warming is due to man” claim, are evidence of this. The most damning evidence however at the IPCC computer models. The computer models quantified the grandiose expectations, and they all failed.
Point #5 Cherry picks only favorable evidence, and relies on testimonials and or weak evidence. Ironically, the best examples of this are also the best-known arguments the climate alarmists make. The N Pole is losing ice, but it is largely due to natural forces. The S Pole, that isn’t impacted by these natural forces is actually gaining ice. The other example is the Mt Kilimanjaro glacier that is disappearing due to sublimation, not warming.
Point #6) Uses flawed methods that are not repeatable. The “Hockey-Stick” is the greatest example of this. This critical piece of “evidence” used to support the AGW theory used manufactured, researcher specific statistical techniques like “Mike’s Nature Trick to …Hide the Decline.” The NOAA/NASA/GISS temperature reconstructions are also not reproducible, and are dependent upon “adjustments” to manufacture warming.
Point #7) Lone Mavericks working in isolation. The field of climate science is defined not by a lone Maverick working in isolation, but by a cabal of activists colluding for a common cause. The Climategate emails expose a well-established conspiracy between NASA/NOAA/GISS Penn State University/Michael Mann, and the “peer review” journals.
Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.
Point #8) Uses inconsistent and invalid logic. Once again, the poster child of climate change, the polar ice caps are a great example. If losing ice in the N Pole is evidence of warming, the increase in ice at the S Pole must be evidence of cooling, but you never hear a climate alarmist make that case. Additionally, the models, data “adjustments,” and AGW theory all define a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature. The relationship is logarithmic, not linear. Lastly, daytime record high temperatures and warming oceans aren’t evidence of CO2 driven warming, they are evidence of an increase in incoming radiation, not trapping outgoing radiation.
Point #9) Dogmatic and Unyielding. The recent House Hearings of Climate Change gave a graphic example of this characteristic of pseudo-science. Michael Mann even attacked a Woman, Dr. Judith Curry, an action I’m sure he deeply regrets. Don’t expect NOW to come running to Dr. Curry’s defense, however, she is on the wrong side of this political argument.
Michael Mann repeated all the expected lies, called his hockey stick an iconic result, and was caught in two new lies: he denied his affiliation with the Climate Accountability Institute and he denied calling Dr. Curry a “denier.” When shown a transcript in which he called her that name in the same session, he went into a diatribe about the supposed difference between “climate change denier” and “climate science denier.” It appeared to me that questions the Democrats on the Committee asked Mann and the answers he gave had been scripted.
My impressions from the hearing were not positive. Mann spoke for almost half of the time and boldly asserted the most extreme alarmist positions and factoids (quoting from my own notes): “devoted his life to science [about himself]”, “few individuals who represent tiny minority [about other three witnesses]”, “scientists continuously challenge each other [implying he is a scientist]”, “extremely broad agreement on the basic facts,” 97%, “climate change is real, human caused, and has heavy impact”, “fingerprints of human-caused climate change on extreme events”, “anti-science forces launched a series of attack on scientists”, “time for republicans to put away doubts and focus on solutions”, “discourage investigations of climate scientists,” and “support by multiple national academic societies.”