Monday, December 21, 2015

AGW theory is utterly without merit

Again, one may question my qualifications for writing this.  Yet, I think I can write it with confidence because, once again, I have discovered something that shows a critical problem with AGW theory.

This time, it is about the scientific method itself.  The unfortunate thing is that nobody is taught these things in school.  For if these things were actually taught, these AGW people would have no credibility at all.   The fact that they have any credibility with people should worry people who do know better.

I got a quote from John S. Lewis' blog about this abuse, during which he criticized the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" as an "eco-porn" film.  But the key thing for me was his discussion of the Scientific Method ( without identifying it as such):

First, there is the use of the word “evidence” to describe the predictions of models and proxy estimates.  Let’s be clear about this: the way science progresses is to 1) collect data, 2) propose one or more ideas, called hypotheses, that might explain the data, 3) use quantitative models of these hypotheses to generate predictions of future observations, and 4) carry out a new round of experiments designed to test (and discriminate between) the competing hypotheses.  Steps 1 and 4 deal with evidence (data); step 3 is not evidence; it is informed conjecture, as-yet untested speculation, whose sole purpose is to motivate a search for critical new data, NOT to predict the future. [emphasis added].
You hear a lot about the computer models, don't you?  But the purpose of the models is not to predict the future, which is being done all the time.   Aren't we always hearing how the temperature is going to rise by such and such an amount by the end of the century?  According to this quote then, it is an abuse of the scientific method to use MODELS to predict the future.  The legitimate use of the models is to search for critical new data.

If your AGW theory doesn't follow the Scientific Method, then how is it science?  It isn't.  It's a fraud.

No comments: