Climate “Science” Pillars of Sand; Eroding the Foundation of the Hoax

pillars-of-sand-L-Jr0WX7Real science is founded in the “scientific method.” It relies on data, experimentation, falsification of a hypothesis and reproducibility. “Science” that isn’t reproducible is black magic, superstition, witchcraft, coincidence, Oracle’s riddles, and Soothsayer’s visions. Climate “science” isn’t founded in the scientific method, it instead rests upon the pillars of:

  1. Peer Reviewed Literature
  2. Scientific Consensus
  3. Professional Science/Academic Organization support
  4. Computer model “evidence”
  5. A hypothesis
  6. This is a real “science”

Listen to any Congressional Testimony by Michael “Hockeystick” Mann, and he will rattle these off as if he was auditioning for an auctioneer’s job. The Mann deserves an Oscar more than he deserves his “Nobel Prize.”

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.”

Everything Michael Mann says is practiced, focus group tested, tightly controlled and intended to win the hearts and minds of the American voter. It has absolutely nothing to do with science, and everything to do with funding, policy, and politics. The talking points are widely distributed to all the left-wing support groups, so everyone is singing the same toon (Must watch video of when simply reciting talking points can go seriously wrong). For climate realists to win his fight, they have to master Mann on the field of politics, not science. Winning the scientific battle, and losing the political battle, is losing the war.

To win the political battle, climate realists must topple the pillars of sand that are supporting Michael Mann’s arguments. Fortunately, most of these pillars of sand holding each other up, so toppling one topples others as well.

Let’s tackle “Peer Review” first because most others rest upon it. Michael Mann and other alarmists will claim that 97% of “Peer Reviewed” literature support the hypothesis of man-made global warming. That may be true, but very few of papers published in scientific journals follow the scientific method. Much of what has been published can’t be reproduced. Being published in a “Scientific” journal doesn’t mean it followed the scientific method or is reproducible. Many articles published in “scientific” journals are nothing more than editorials, speculation, activism, and/or propaganda. It is likely none of the climate research follows the scientific method, and what

Being published in a “Scientific” journal doesn’t mean it followed the scientific method or is reproducible. Many articles published in “scientific” journals are nothing more than editorials, speculation, activism, and/or propaganda. It is likely none of the climate research follows the scientific method, and what experimentation does exist is a complete joke. Reproducibility means nothing when the experiment being replicated doesn’t prove what it was intended to in the first place.

What that means is that the golden standard, the bedrock supporting the entire field of climate change, the hallowed “Peer Review,” doesn’t require any science to get approved. What kind of scientific “peer review” doesn’t require any science? Simple, a very very corrupt one. One whose treachery and tyranny were exposed in the climate gate emails. That is the only way something like the “Hockeystick” could ever make it past any “peer review” process, if real science was required, it wouldn’t make it past the mailbox.

In the future, anyone testifying before congress should be required to submit their supporting evidence in advance so that an impartial analysis can be applied to see if it truly qualifies as real science. The first question directed towards any climate alarmist should simply be what journal published the research on which you base your opinion, and does that journal require the application of the scientific method and reproducibility. Climate alarmists should also have to explain how the results of the IPCC climate models are scientific “evidence” supporting their claims. In reality, the results of the IPCC climate models reject the AGW theory, they don’t support it.

b40bb-haroldhaydenipcc

Second, comes the scientific “consensus.” The problem with this concept is that the “science” journals aren’t publishing science, they are publishing opinion. As mentioned above many published articles don’t apply the scientific method, and/or detain reproducible experiments. What good is a “scientific consensus” if the research it is based upon isn’t science? It is a farce. The second question directed towards any climate alarmist should simply be “if the journals on which the “consensus” are based aren’t publishing real science, what good is the “consensus.” Isn’t this more like the blind leading the blind? If the requirement of applying the scientific method and reproducibility aren’t requirements for journals supporting the “consensus,” couldn’t the “consensus” be based upon Comic Books? Just how valid is the research supporting the “consensus.”la-et-jc-first-superman-comic-book-record-price-3-point-2-million-20140825.jpg

Third, comes the support of Professional Science/Academic Organizations. These are the groups performing and publishing the research that isn’t reproducible and doesn’t apply the scientific method. Once again, what kind of “scientific” organization would allow a “scientific peer review” to pass such garbage as the “Hockeystick?” Additionally, the “opinon” of the organizations are usually of the leadership, not the rank-and-file. And even if the opinion reflects a “poll” of its members the questions are often too vague to have any validity or meaning, and the frustrated opposition may have simply resigned as members. Lastly, the membership of these organizations may require no credentials at all

Additionally, the membership of these organizations may require no credentials at all other than a valid credit card. The below dog is a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists. No, really, he is, just click the above link. The third question directed towards any climate alarmist should simply be what research is supporting the opinion of the organization, and who is represented by that opinion? The leaders or the members? If the members, what questions were used to reach the opinion? Did the people forming the opinion base their opinion on research that didn’t require the application of the scientific method and reproducibility?kenji_watts

The fourth pillar is the computer model “evidence.”  Climate “science” is the only field of science that I’m aware of that doesn’t apply the scientific method, run experiments and considers computer simulations as evidence. If computer forecast models counted as factual evidence every climate “scientist” would be working on Wall Street. All one wound need to do is write some code that shows the markets going up, and whalah, you’re a multi-trillionaire.  The fourth question directed towards any climate alarmist should simply be if computer models are evidence and represent facts, why do computer financial models always fail? BTW, computer models show absolutely no warming in the lower troposphere with a doubling of CO2, absolutely zero.stock-market-flash-crash-model-12

The fifth pillar is the only part of the scientific method that applies to climate “science.” There is a legitimate hypothesis, and that hypothesis is that anthropogenic greenhouse gasses cause climate change/global warming. In reality, it has to be global warming because the only mechanism by which CO2 can affect the climate is by absorbing outgoing longwave infrared radiation. The problem is, when the null hypothesis “climate change is due to natural causes” is tested, it isn’t rejected. Simply applying the scientific method to the available data results in the AGW hypothesis being rejected.

The entire field of climate “science” is based upon a hypothesis that is rejected when the scientific method is applied. And they call the “deniers” the flat earthers. The fifth question directed towards any climate alarmist should simply be “have you tested the hypothesis “climate change is due to natural causes” and was it rejected?” If they say yes, have them produce the data. There isn’t an ice core data set anywhere that shows that the temperature change over the past 150 years is statistically different from the Holocene average, at least not any I’ve found. More importantly, if you use unadjusted data, it is hard to make a case for any real warming over the past 300 years.

Screen-Shot-2013-07-17-at-9.07.15-PMThe last pillar of sand is that the climate alarmists always claim that the “science” is “settled” and that it is proven with 95% certainty that man has caused 100% of warming over the past half-century, blah blah blah. First science is never “settled,” science is a process of exploration and understanding. Understanding something as infinitely complex as the global climate will never be settled. If something is understood it can be modeled, and the climate experts have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that they can’t do that. Second, science doesn’t ever “prove” anything, real science “rejects” a hypothesis, it never “accepts” or proves a hypothesis. BTW, note how global warming and climate change are used interchangeably in this graphic. Also, just what does “humans are responsible for climate change” even mean? Put down a highway or build a city and you cause climate change, but it isn’t due to CO2. Lastly, the “publishing climate scientists” and those with “greater climate expertise” are the very people publishing the garbage in the un-scientific journals, and are heavily vested in the outcome. In other words, they are a tainted jury. They represent the Science Research Industrial Complex Eisenhower warned America about in his farewell speech. The last question directed towards any climate alarmist should be “does your income depend on climate research funding, or does the person writing the un-scientific article for the un-scientific journal that influenced your opinion depend on climate research funding?

Second, science doesn’t ever “prove” anything, real science “rejects” a hypothesis, it never “accepts” or proves a hypothesis. BTW, note how global warming and climate change are used interchangeably in the below graphic. Also, just what does “humans are responsible for climate change” even mean? Put down a highway or build a city and you cause climate change, but it isn’t due to CO2. Lastly, the “publishing climate scientists” and those with “greater climate expertise” are the very people publishing the garbage in the un-scientific journals, and are heavily vested in the outcome. In other words, they are a tainted jury. They represent the Science Research Industrial Complex Eisenhower warned America about in his farewell speech. The last question directed towards any climate alarmist should be “does your income depend on climate research funding, or does the person writing the un-scientific article for the un-scientific journal that influenced your opinion depend on climate research funding?Screen-Shot-2017-03-11-at-3.30.43-AM

In the end, climate “science” is all one big house of cards.

house-of-cards-kevin-spacey.jpg

Advertisements

16 thoughts on “Climate “Science” Pillars of Sand; Eroding the Foundation of the Hoax”

  1. Anyone who uses the phrase “climate denier” is either a corrupt fraud or an ignorant tool.

    Guess which one Dr. Michael ShaMann is?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s