Memo To Global Warming Alarmists: Science Is Often Wrong

cartoonThe global warming debate often degenerates into one side — the alarmists — claiming the other side — skeptics — is anti-science. Believers wrap themselves in science as if it were an impenetrable and absolute defense.

But science is not perfect. As this headline in Wired says, “Scientists Are Wrong All The Time, and That’s Fantastic.”

According to author Marcus Woo, “When a researcher gets proved wrong, that means the scientific method is working. Scientists make progress by redoing each other’s experiments — replicating them to see if they can get the same result. More often than not, they can’t.”

In the case of global warming — or climate change — scientists have replicated the results of each other’s climate models. Almost all of them predict warming. The trouble for these scientists, though, is reality is not consistent with the modeling.

Woo acknowledges that when scientists are proved wrong, “it’s way too hard for people to find out.”

It shouldn’t be that way with global warming. The end-of-times disasters predicted have not occurred, and temperatures have been flat for almost two decades now. These things are obvious.

Woo notes that “scientists don’t like to step on each other’s toes” and quotes Elizabeth Iorns, CEO of Science Exchange, who says researchers “feel a lot of pressure not to contradict each other.”

She adds, “There’s a lot of evidence that if you do that, it’ll be negative for your career.”

That’s a complaint we’ve heard many times in climate science. Skeptical researchers are too often smeared, ostracized and silenced.

If climate science were truly settled, why would the dissenters be treated this way? Wouldn’t it be enough to simply let the man-made warming take its course to prove them wrong?

The way much of the alarmist community continues to behave is further confirmation that the climate change debate is not about science. It’s about politics.

Source

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (15)

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Kerry Jackson “it’s about politics “. Politics for sure but take the money out and the scam disappears fast .

    One look at the ring leaders : Politicians,actors pretending to be scientists , intimidated news paper editors ,
    and the facade of truth from groups like the IPCC that is currently rebranding itself the International Pervert Country Club if the sexual harassment allegations before the law hold up .

    Climate study is a complex and hugely important field that has been hijacked
    be a small group of charlatans looking to
    line their pockets or score political points .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    sonnyhill

    |

    I agree, Amber. Why don’t they wait until man-made global warming proves them right? Too much lost loot if they wait for all the ice to melt.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Robert

    |

    If you want to have some fun, when a person makes the claim that someone is
    anti-science” ask that person to explain what science is. The “deer in the headlights” analogy is nothing to the confusion a simple question like that can cause an alarmist.

    I’ve never run across a bunch who claims to support something they don’t even understand while claiming anyone who thinks differently than they do is “anti” that something. At least not until this whole thing exposed all the scientific lemmings out there.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Me

      |

      Yeah, pretty much, or they don’t even know the people that support their ideas, and stated as much and they don’t give a crap who they are. I had that one tonight, it was too funny. 😀

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Frederick Colbourne

    |

    Cosmoclimatology is in my opinion the best prospect for a theory of climate of the same scale as plate tectonics is for geology.

    Since Dr Kirby wrote the 2008 paper, NASA reported that, Voyager Makes an Interstellar Discovery (2009)

    URL: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/23dec_voyager/

    What is not known is whether the Local Interstellar Cloud or “Local Fluff” has internal structure that could produce short-term variations in the intensity of galactic cosmic rays (actually particles – protons & muons).

    The control knob has not yet been “found” in the sense that the galactic-cosmic-ray effect has not been confirmed. Short and long-term variations in the flux might cause variations in cloudiness sufficient to explain changes in climate.

    I realize that Jasper Kirby’s paper might be a little obscure in places, but in my opinion most of the text will be accessible to most non-physicists who follow the climate debate and well worth reading.

    For those who would rather watch a video, here is the link to his video lecture. You will see that he has a modest manner.

    COSMIC RAYS AND CLIMATE
    Jasper Kirkby
    CERN, Geneva, Switzerland

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/0804.1938.pdf

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Robert

      |

      They are doing some extremely interesting work at CERN, the only problem with what they are doing is that the politicians can’t tax cosmic rays.

      As long as they can continue to claim it is CO2, which we exhale, plants need to survive, and pretty much anything and everything produces at some point then the various green groups, NGO’s, and politicians will try and use that assumption to force their agendas on the rest of us to “save the planet™”

      The one thing I have found in dealing with activists over the years is the ONLY thing they care about is getting what they want regardless of whether it is actually beneficial to anyone or anything else.

      Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      I’ve been a Kirby fan for years! Great info. Too bad this side of the science is not yet getting the attention it so richly deserves. Maybe in a another generation or two, Kirby (et al) will be in science textbooks, and CAGW will be confined to psychology textbooks.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    And someone needs to send Gina McCarthy a memo on the failures of climate models. I have trouble believing she did not know about the models, but then I guess that looks better on camera than saying that all models upon which draconian measures are based, have all utterly failed.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    I don’t think that most scientists who have been taken in by this scam have done so intentionally. Mostly, it’s human nature. Everyone wants to gain favor with their peers, and nobody wants to call somebody’s baby ugly.

    Thirty years ago the few climatologists who existed were like the Maytag Repair Man with about the same status in the scientific community. Suddenly climatologists are everywhere and they are rock stars. Furthermore, the pretense of MMGW
    has created a tax supported mega-industry that has replaced medical research as the primary source of funding at many universities.

    No wonder few scientists want to kill that golden goose.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      Actually there are still very few trained climatologists. What has been popping up like crabgrass of late are so called ‘climate experts’, who can have no degree, or any degree in any other field.

      I know, because I actually was a climatology student three decades ago.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    John Paily

    |

    In contrast to large majority of global warming activist, who speak of unilateral global warming due to increased CO2 and trapping of heat and ice melting and se rising and so on, I have persisted with a model where both heating and cooling forces increases exponentially due to the Design and Principle on which earth works. Common sense says we are governed by two opposing cycles; heating and cooling that exist simultaneously and gives way to one another. Earth is designed to balance. Heat cycle we note invariably gives way cold cycle and vice-versa forming day and night and climatic cycle. Increased heat and power to climate invariably means increased cold and power to cooling cycle. The change is getting accelerated and gaining power. Both these forces, unwinding and winding, are exponentially increasing leading to what we are witnessing as increased forest fire drought — increased flash floods and flash snows. The rapid increases and fall of energy is also causing the earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. We are heading to catastrophic period where biosphere tends to collapse. We can only survive provided we awaken to the Principle and Design and take steps manage the energy of the environment and develop new technologies that release less heat to the environment – life gives the clue to evolve
    https://www.scribd.com/doc/248327805/Truth-About-Climate-Change-How-It-is-Unfolding-and-Can-We-Survive

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      One problem John, there is no increase in natural disasters. Even the IPCC admits this.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Next time you are on your way to a global warming conference pop the door at 30,000 feet you might find where some of that missing heat goes . Maybe that -35c has actually risen to a whopping -34c.

    Alternatively all that hot air coming out of the global warming religion could just be moving by convection to the poles and nudging the average mean temperature up from – 50c
    to -49c.

    Given that Antarctica is twice the size of Australia that is one big ice cube to melt and at minus 40 c it isn’t about to unfreeze from the small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere anyways .

    Then the popular theory is there has been no warming for almost 20 years because the oceans have… “stored” it . I like that one best hopefully better swimming .

    In any event that should give us thousands of years to fix the climate models if we haven’t wiped each other out over religion or access to pop tarts .

    Reply

Leave a comment

Loading Disqus Comments ...

No Trackbacks.