Pay attention to the West Virginia *Democratic* Primary, too.
The Democratic primary in West Virginia will likely give us some interesting data on how badly coal is going to hurt Hillary Clinton.Read More »
Today is Tuesday, January 7th, ever hereafter to be known as the coldest thing that ever happened to cable news and proof everlasting of the truth of global warming, because weather is absolutely the same things as climate. This is as opposed to yesterday, Monday January 6th, when relating the news of the cold weather to the theory of global warming was a thought crime worthy of the highest order.
A friend in the business of science emails about the religion of science subscribed to by the “climate change” town criers:
Their approach to science is so unsound it makes me want to throw up.
Calling bull on scientific theories is what I am paid to do. You see, scientists have an uncanny ability to distort, misinterpret, or ignore data when it does not support their hypothesis.
Take, for example, drilling. A geologist’s drilling prospect is essentially a hypothesis based on scientific data: the prospect may or may not contain oil. Of 100 prospects that are pitched, less than 5% are “spongeworthy” (i.e., viable). The reason that so many prospects are bad ones is that geoscientists are trained and monetarily rewarded for being optimists. They have a vested interest in convincing management to act on a proposal. And management, if they are doing their job, take this into account.
One of the most effective geophysicists I’ve worked with was a guy who tried to kill his own ideas in every way possible. His best prospects, the ones that eventually floated to the top of the heap, were the ones that could stand the scrutiny. The reason is that there are so many things that can go wrong in the real world that you just can’t predict them all. (And oil and gas accumulation as a system is infinitely less complicated than the global climate system.)
The way you can tell that climate science is junk is that no one in the True Believer community has the guts to try to disprove it. If it is such a robust theory, it can stand the scrutiny!
That is the essence of the scientific method.
Skepticism is a good and healthy thing. When climate skeptics are labeled as fascists (and worse) merely for skepticism expressed in good faith, well, that’s a big red flag.
It is clear that the climate science community does not know everything there is to know about how the climate works. They discover new mechanisms all the time. Every one that is discovered becomes intriguing new evidence supporting the Global Warming theory. What are the chances that of, say, 100 new subtle climate interactions, 100% of them work to amplify, rather than dampen, the warming tendencies of a minor constituent gas in the atmosphere?
All this in the face of a 15 year hiatus in warming that none of their vaunted computer models predicted.
That’s the bottom line. As I’ve said here at RedState before, climate scientists are wrong in their approach, wrong about what it takes to establish scientific fact, and are frankly almost universally and without fail wrong in their specific predictions.
And worse than the the scientists are the armchair commentators. In the press, on opinion shows, in editorials, on social media, on blogs, in the classroom, at watercoolers, and in every other possible venue, the global warming faithful are there, ready to condemn heresy and make pretense at moral superiority. They are part of the club, the devout and true, and you are either with them or against them. Humorless, ill-informed, pompous, and self-certain, they know things. They don’t think them, they know them. And what they know is that everything can be related to global warming, if by related you mean “made to support.” And anything can’t be made to support, simply isn’t related.
It doesn’t have to make sense. It’s an article of faith.