The distortion of science for ideological purposes has a long history, and the results are generally ugly.

Saturday, October 21, 2006


"the CO2 warming theory remains untested and unverified. Beyond wiggle-matching, no experimental evidence has been produced to show that an increase in CO2 can accelerate the water cycle and increase greenhouse warming with water vapour. In fact, ice core evidence from the past shows that it doesn't". (C.f. Dr. Ian Clark, Professor - Geosciences, University of Ottowa, source

One would have thought that the most crucial test of AGW would be to have tested the primary hypothesis detailed above.

That neither Climate Sceptic nor AGW proponent has ever pointed to any experimental data either confirming or refuting that hypothesis forces one to one conclusion - the hypothesis remains untested.

Just as the Biotic Oil theory - no-one has experimentally created petroleum from organic matter at the temperatures and pressures assumed to exist at the bottom of sedimentary accumulations.

So what is going on?

Why are we relying on the art of persuasion and consensus to prove scientific fact instead of experiment?

Professor Phillip Stott has pointed to a change in the "paradigm" here but as any scientific paradigm relies on a consensus, it cannot, from first principles, be called scientific.

A scientific fact is self-evident and need only be disproven by one scientist by experiment. So when a group of scientists decide by consensus that something is "ABC" one can be quite sure that it is not science but self re-enforcing group think.

Anthrpogenic Global Warming is an example of technical group-think.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


May 2006   August 2006   September 2006   October 2006   November 2006   December 2006  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?