Climate “Science” is Pseudo-Science; A Point-by-Point Proof

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 if 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.

Read rest…

Comments (1)

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    This is an excellent article that says it all.

    It is clear that man made climate change “Science” is a Pseudo-Science, or perhaps better stated a junk science. Now for the question of “what is it?” I propose that it is a political campaign. This junk science has many political campaign traits.

    Perhaps most telling is the grand announcements by NOAA of “hottest ever.” Even if they were not based on fake data, the amount of warming would be very small and these grand announcements are exaggerations.

    Like a political campaign, there is hostility against those that disagree with them. I am well education in science and true scientists welcome divergent view points.

    Like many campaigns, they substitute antidotal accounts instead of using real data.

    Political campaigns cherry pick information that favors their view point and attempt to hide data that doesn’t.

    Dogmatic and unyielding is a true trait of a political campaign.

    However, one difference is political campaigns, at least in theory, are funded by private contributions. On the other hand, the climate change campaign is done at tax payer expense by agencies like NOAA.

Comments are closed