I spent a little time over at the Independent’s environment site the other day engaged in one of those bizarre comments wars that seem only to occur when the subject is climate change. For those that don’t know, the Indy pursues a pretty aggressive line in the ‘humans are the cause of all earthly evils’ meme and is second only to the Guardian in attracting commenters willing to rubbish any dissent from the climate orthodoxy.
If you’ve been here before, you’ll know that I don’t subscribe to the
Anthropogenic Global Warming, Climate Change, Global Climate Disruption theory: my objections are not based on what passes for climate science but on the refusal of the theory’s protagonists to engage in debate with scientists who disagree with them or to consider what to me are the more intuitively correct solar theories. In addition, the warmists are basing most of their theory on models rather than observation and they brook absolutely no dissent nor acknowledge the essential, defining element of a scientific theory – falsifiabilty. Whenever their (limited) predictions fail to materialise, they just tweak their models and theory to show that global warming is responsible for a rapidly increasing tally of the world’s ills. Strangely, the models only ever make accurate predictions of events that have already happened. Ask a warmist to give you a concrete prediction for the future and they decline – or get it wrong.
A staple of global warming theory is that we are always told that the science is settled – in other words, don’t bother to argue. No real scientist will tell you that the science is settled: the best that science can provide is an acceptable working hypothesis – at some stage, it is always possible that somebody will come along with an inconvenient finding that requires a whole new hypothesis. That Newton guy is going to look pretty daft when somebody shows that gravity doesn’t exist all and that everything’s just interconnected with lengths of invisible knicker elastic.
But to stoke alarm, our climate heroes regularly lard their findings with the phrase “.. is happening faster than previously thought’ as in the ice-caps are melting faster than previously thought or extinctions are happening faster than previously thought or Justin Bieber is more over-rated than previously thought (I made that one up – we love Justin almost as we loved somebody else last week). Now, to me if something happens in any way differently to the way I thought it happened before, I clearly didn’t understand the mechanism in the first place. On that basis, how can the science that applied to the first instance lay claim to being settled? If climate science that was held to be settled is now found to be unsettled, why do we continue to shovel our economies down the drain on the basis of something that somebody once held to be true but is now proven to be untrue?
During the course of making this very point at the Indy, I posted a link to a video that I first found on Bishop Hill’s excellent blog. It features Professor Dr. Vincent Courtillot, a French scientist speaking in lucid English about his work on solar effects. I was so impressed and persuaded by the video that I’ve been posting links to it on any relevant forum that I’ve visited. However, a strange thing happened at the Indy as I hit the post button – the screen froze and several minutes later I received an on-screen message telling me that my comment had been referred to moderation. My comment never appeared.
I know my experience is far from unique – but it is very strange that on pro-climate sites it only ever seems to happen to those of us who prefer a more open approach to science.
Anyway, here’s a link to the video. I’m not going to generate the traffic for it that it might have enjoyed at the Indy but hopefully, you’ll spread the word.
Unless you’re as passionate about the abuse of climate science as I am, this may not be your cup of tea – but at least stick with it to about the 1-minute mark: the audience’s spontaneous applause for the notion of rebalancing the scientific method in favour of observation is heartening.
And you’ll remember it when you next hear the BBC et al propagandising about dangerous carbon dioxode (sic) and the overwhelming scientific consensus for the theory of anthropogenic global warming.