Global Warming Is NOT Science

An excellent synopsis of the pseudoscientific bankruptcy of, and consequent implicit exposure of the leftwing extremist motivations behind, the global warming/climate change hoax (via Rovin):

There has been atmospheric cooling the last 8 years, and no new high global annual temperatures in the last eleven years. None of the computer models replicate this fact. Anthropogenic (or man caused) global warming is not proved.

The global warming adherents base their argument of proof on more than twenty different computer models called general circulation models (also known as global climate models or GCMs). Each computer model is composed of dozens of mathematical equations representing known scientific laws, theories, and hypotheses. Each equation has one or more constants. The constants associated with known laws are very well defined. The constants associated with known theories are generally accepted but probably some of them may be off by a factor of two or more, maybe even an order of magnitude. The equations representing hypotheses, well, sometimes the hypotheses are just plain wrong.

Then each of these equations has to be weighted against each other for use in the computer models, so that adds an additional variable (basically an educated guess) for each law, theory, and hypothesis. This is where the models are tweaked to mimic past climate measurements.

The SCIENTIFIC METHOD is: (1) Following years of academic study of the known physical laws and accepted theories, and after reviewing some data, come up with a hypothesis to explain the data. (2) Develop a plan to obtain and analyze new data. (3) Collect and analyze the data, this may even require new technology not previously available. (4) Determine if the hypothesis is correct, needs refinement, or is wrong. Either way, new data is available for other researchers. (5) Submit results, including data, for peer review and publication.

The output of the computer models run out nearly ninety years forward is considered to be data, but it is not a measurement of a physical phenomenon. Also, there is no way to analyze this so called data to determine if any or which of the hypotheses in the models are correct, need refinement, or are wrong. Also, this method cannot indicate if other new hypotheses need to be generated and incorporated into the models. IT JUST IS NOT THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

The worst flaw in the AGW argument is the treatment of GCM computer generated outputs as data. They then use it in follow on hypotheses. For example, if temperature rises by X degrees in fifty years, then Y will be effected in such-and-such a way resulting in Z. Then the next person comes along and says, well, if Z happens, the effect on W will be a catastrophe. “I need (and deserve) more money to study the effects on W.” Hypotheses, stacked on hypotheses, stacked on more hypotheses, all based on computer outputs that are not data, using a process that does not lend to proof using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Look at their results, IF, MIGHT, and COULD are used throughout their news making results. And when one of the underlying hypotheses is proven incorrect, well, the public only remembers the doomsday results two or three iterations down the hypotheses train. The hypotheses downstream are not automatically thrown out and can even be used for more follow on hypotheses. (Submitted by NucEngineer (not verified) on Sat, 08/01/2009 – 10:28. LINK

The essence of the global warming/climate change pagan mythology: a towering Babel of unsupported assumptions, an insatiable fusillade of lying, hysterical chicken little-ism, and an avalanche of vicious, quasi-religious persecution, all of it directed at any American citizen who commits no greater "sin" than to refuse to be panicked into ceasing to think for himself and blindly relinquishing is life, liberty, and happiness for three magic beans that won't grow stinkweed, much less a "planet-saving" beanstalk.

And guess what, greenstremists? The public's panic hangover is rapidly wearing off:

There has been a sharp decline over the past year in the percentage of Americans who say there is solid evidence that global temperatures are rising. And fewer also see global warming as a very serious problem – 35% say that today, down from 44% in April 2008.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted September 30-October 4 among 1,500 adults reached on cell phones and landlines, finds that 57% think there is solid evidence that the average temperature on earth has been getting warmer over the past few decades. In April 2008, 71% said there was solid evidence of rising global temperatures.

Over the same period, there has been a comparable decline in the proportion of Americans who say global temperatures are rising as a result of human activity, such as burning fossil fuels. Just 36% say that currently, down from 47% last year.

As with any other trendy religion, it's easy to pay lip service to it no matter how loony it may be as long as it remains superficially popular and it doesn't seriously impact your own life. As soon as that possibility rises above the public radar, as after an election which installed into power a regime of unrepentant Marxists who are, well, religiously committed to banning the internal combustion engine, ten dollar a gallon gasoline while domestic energy exploration is outlawed, permanent rolling blackouts, herding the American people onto public transportation and into Sovietesque highrise apartment buildings with power taps that allow the government to shut off your electricity and heat on a whim, and other superduper "progressive/going green" ideas, people start counting the cost of Utopia and figuring out that they're the ones who're going to get stuck with the titanic bill for it. Which is most of why all the European signatories to the defunct Kyoto Protocol never came anywhere near their carbon emission reduction targets; to have actually tried to take their economies backwards a hundred years would have generated mass public revolts even in such gelded post-capitalist post-states as those of the EU. It's also why the Dems' sacramental gargantuan "cap & trade" energy taxes will never make it out of this Congress or any of its successors any time soon.

Little Orphan Annie is a more knowledgeable climatologist than Fat Albert's so called "consensus". The latter could learn a lot from her.