Green Room

In Theory, It Ought to Be a Theory, But

posted at 4:58 pm on January 1, 2010 by

Frequent commenter Snochasr: has responded to a previous Big Lizards post titled Gas Masquerade, which notes that even some mainstream scientific publications for lay readers have begun to think a second time about the pronunciamentos of globaloney. Snochasr japed:

This looks like my list of the “top four flaws” in the theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW). Those are that it’s not catastrophic, it’s not anthropogenic, it’s not global and it’s not warming. But it IS a theory.

Well actually, it’s not even a theory — at least not a scientific one.

In science terms, a “theory” is “an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations.”

To continue quoting from that unimpeachable font of all wisdom, Wikipedia…

A scientific theory does two things:

  1. it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and
  2. makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.

In the scientific or empirical tradition, the term “theory” is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. These requirements vary across different scientific fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena.

Here are the theoretical problems with the “theory-ness” of AGCC:

  • AGCC is not primarily based upon empirical observation but rather computer modeling; as the models are designed by global-warming activists, they naturally show global warming… but that is purely an artifact of the modeling: A spurious characteristic introduced by human manipulation, whether deliberate or unconscious.
  • It is inconsistent with about half the available data — which is therefore suppressed, e.g. Michael Mann’s infamous “hockey stick” graph, which wished the Mediaeval Climate Optimum out of existence. When observation is subservient to the model, when data is cherry-picked, when results are misreported or manipulated, when contrary results are censored, that is not science; it’s politics.
  • It is not functional; it cannot even “predict” the warming from 1900 to 2000; nor can it explain the lack of warming since 1998, other than by denying it.
  • It is not parsimonious, in that there are simpler explanations than AGCC that account for what observational evidence does exist — variations in solar output, for example.
  • It is not testable, since even its proponents proclaim that there are too many confounding factors to make firm predictions.
  • It is not falsifiable, as “climate change” can mean a climate that is warming, a climate that is cooling, or a climate showing unusual stability, each of which thus becomes “evidence” for AGCC.

Ergo, AGCC is not a scientific theory. At best, it could be an interesting hypothesis for future scientific study.

More accurately, as currently used, AGCC modeling is a political formulation whose true function is to rationalize and facilitate the gargantuan transfer of wealth from developed to underdeveloped nations and the accumulation of totalitarian power within an international quasi-government.

This global regime is cobbled together from environmental regulations, economic utopianism, and radical misanthropy… “hatred of humanity” so extreme it calls for the destruction of most of the human race (or all of it, in some cases) and the degredation of whatever fraction remains.

So… AGCC Theory is not anthropogenic, not global, not climate change — and it’s not even a theory. Strike four, and globaloney is really, really, really out!

Cross-posted on Big Lizards

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Great post. Science™ it works! http://store.xkcd.com/xkcd/#Science

Plus, even if AGCC were true, for 40 years the left has consistently blocked solutions that would work.

NaCly dog on January 1, 2010 at 5:50 PM

Love getting the information on this hoax that is easily understood. Wish there was some way to get this out to the general public that doesn’t visit this site so that they could see just how dumb this scam is. All we get in our paper is people lamenting how the glaciers have all melted.

Kissmygrits on January 1, 2010 at 7:38 PM

Kissmygrits on January 1, 2010 at 7:38 PM

Starting in the earliest years, we’ve a couple generations who are most adept at finding folks to feed them the answers. The AGW is such an event. How many of those who “believe in ” AGW have actually studied the issue from all sides, compared and contrasted the available data, or even tried to obtain or extrapolate new data? Very very few…perhaps no more than a few dozen per voting district, if that many. But, everyone has an “opinion” on the issue, facts or no facts, and thus vote accordingly or vote according to how they are told to vote. “If you love Mother Earth, vote for a Dem. If you love toxic waste dumps in your backyard, vote Republican.”

The data is available. If you are willing to do expend a minimum of effort to find it.

Spoon feeding the electorate? Seems to work well for the Left.

As for the local paper…call them, write a letter to the editor for publication, guest write an op-ed. Get friends and family members to do the same. Provide direction to scientific sites and sources….not the just political AGW sites and sources. Especially not the AGW sites and sources..

I am not optimistic about the prospects for the AGW folks to not end up calling the shots in the near term. In the long term, as more information becomes available by those of us who actually seek it out, the public perception of the current scam will change.

It is no longer about saving Mother Earth. It has become all about changing the global economic order. Lots of folks are going to get filthy rich on the back of the AGW movement. So, of course they are pressing like all get out to make sure any dissent is quashed fast.

coldwarrior on January 1, 2010 at 7:50 PM

Very informative. Thank you!

BlameAmericaLast on January 1, 2010 at 8:09 PM

Well done Dafydd ab Hugh. People who have paid for carbon credits are dips but even dips are allowed to sue. These participants [buyers] need to take every person, firm or organization [sellers] to court. Like any other flim flam operation suited to bilk the consumer under false pretenses, the question is; do consumers have rights when buying erroneous carbon credits? Has the refunding process begun? Some highrollers must be lawyering up as we debate the newly discovered or should I say, the uncovered immovable object called climategate.

Americannodash on January 1, 2010 at 9:06 PM

Leaping Lizards you got to be kidding me

Forget Catastrophic Apolitical Global Warming.

Charles Hapgood theory of Crustal Displacement will destroy us all. The research data convinced Albert Einstein the research was indeed significant but valid as well. Quick! The nations of the Earth need to off-set their crustal impact by buying dirt credits, or there will be MAJOR climate changes!

Also something weird is happening deep underground where the constant spin of Earth’s liquid metallic core generates an invisible magnetic force field that shields our planet from harmful radiation in space. Gradually, the field is growing weaker and the poles are beginning to flip. We are heading for a demagnetized doomsday that will leave us defenseless against the lethal effects of solar wind and cosmic rays! And Bush did nothing to stop it! We Need a Magnetic Storm tax and a BIG new Government Agency.

And so it goes…

BDU-33 on January 2, 2010 at 5:14 AM

Well put.

Robert17 on January 2, 2010 at 8:01 AM

How many of those who “believe in ” AGW have actually studied the issue from all sides, compared and contrasted the available data, or even tried to obtain or extrapolate new data?

How many would even know how to do this, cw? Our schools don’t teach students how to think or reason or even how to find information. They’re too busy teaching them more important matters — like how to “fist” or how to feel good about themselves even though they fail miserably at everything they do in life.

AZCoyote on January 3, 2010 at 7:05 AM