What do Climate Science, Jumbo Shrimp, and Government Intelligence have in common? They all are oxymorons – the two words in each phrase don’t go together.
I specifically want to address Climate Science. Alarmists like to say that the science is settled, but that is NOT the way science works – science is never settled. They like to say that a consensus of scientists agrees that CAGW will change life as we know it unless we rid the world of fossil fuels. Once again, that’s not how science works – consensus
Alarmists say that computer models prove such and such. But, models are just theories which have been formalized into computer language. Computer output means nothing – only observation can validate a theory or prove it wrong.
When one of their models doesn’t work, they just tweak some of the formulae and say they have a new and improved model – which then fails to predict even the past.
Alarmists like to call names, trying to discredit real world data because of the observer or because of who paid for the study. When they do find that their models don’t line up with the observations, they say the data is wrong and make adjustments – to the observations. GISS has adjusted the weather station data dozens of times, and magically each time, the trend of rising temperatures gets steeper.
To Alarmists, every conceivable weather outcome is consistent with CAGW. And BTW, it went from Global Warming to Climate Change to Climate Disruption to Extreme Weather.
Alarmists rarely make any predictions that are both specific enough and within their lifetime to be able to “falsify” their theory. The one exception, the Tropical Hot Spot failed to occur.
“The ultimate test for the IPCC’s catastrophic AGW hypothesis is the existence of the predicted “hotspot” that is a sign of a positive feedback loop for accelerating global warming – newest data show that even after record setting human CO2 emissions the “hotspot” failed to materialize.”
Alarmists like to change the goalposts. Years ago, one researcher said you need a pause of at least 10 years to be significant. That happened and they raised the bar to 15 years. That happened (we currently are at 18 years and counting) and they either ignore it or give all sorts of wierd reasons why the temporary halt has happened. I especially like Kevin Trenberth’s reason – the Deep Oceans ate the heat (I guess he never had a dog as a kid).
One of their biggest logical mistakes is that they argue from ignorance. They say they looked everywhere they could think of in the natural variation world (except clouds and other things they can’t model) and they couldn’t explain the rising trend of temperature. And since there is a rising trend, but they can’t explain it, it must be caused by something else, and they say CO2 is all they could come up with.
That reminds me of the Abbott & Costello comedy routine:
They refuse to debate Climate Skeptics (are the Alarmists cowards?), and they refuse to acknowledge the various theories that Skeptics have which explain Climate Changes through natural variation.
I’ll talk about some of those theories in future posts.