Climate ‘Science’ Is Anti-Science; How Do You Disprove A Consensus?
One of the most difficult concepts for people to understand is that science doesn’t prove theories, science is the process that disproves theories.
In real science, the null hypothesis is the consensus, and conclusion of the peer group. Under normal circumstances, the peer group consensus is based upon the results of reproducible experimentation.
In real science, people aren’t running around trying to convince people what has already been accepted as the scientific truth.
For instance, we no longer have people running around trying to prove that the earth is round…well, almost no one (click here).
Real science states the null and sets out to reject it.
Science rejects what people believe, it doesn’t reinforce it. Real science rejects the null.
Real science disproves what people believe. It never proves that things are what people think they are, that is an impossible task and would require an infinite number of experiments.
Real science is the “belief in the ignorance of the experts.”
Real science takes what is accepted, and proves that it is wrong. The accepted position is the status quo (the consensus) and real science attempts to prove everyone that believes what everyone knows to be true to be gullible fools.
Real science is about claiming “I’m right and the world is wrong, and I have the experiment to back it up.”
That isn’t how Climate Anti-Science is done. There is no scientific method in climate anti-science, there is no scientific process in climate anti-science, there is no experimentation and reproducibility in climate anti-science.
Climate anti-science shuns classical scientific methods and instead turns to science by authority, science by dictate, science by consensus, science by peer review, and science by computer models.
Why is that so wrong? Because you can’t reject a consensus, you can’t reject a peer group study. Just how does this anti-science even work?
You simply can’t ever be wrong if you have enough political power and reach and a likeminded computer programmer.
If I claim that the population of unicorns has been rapidly growing, and I get a few well-placed “experts” to agree with me, and I get published in a few like-minded “Peer Review Journals,” my claim that the unicorn population is growing simply becomes scientific fact.
How do you possibly reject a consensus? How do you reject a peer-reviewed conclusion? Science suddenly becomes more like a political campaign, a popularity contest, a public opinion poll.
I could even back up my claims with a computer model showing that the increase in CO2 has increased crop yields, which should increase the birth rate of unicorns.
This computer model based upon a theory void of any actual physical evidence would be then used a proof that the theory is in fact correct.
Anyone that disagreed with the computer model would be attacked as a “skeptic” or “denier” and have their careers ruined.
That is literally how climate anti-science works.
BTW, the entire foundation of science is skepticism, so the very fact that climate alarmists call people “skeptics” pretty much proves they don’t understand science.
Deniers, as in Holocaust Deniers make claims of disbelief without providing any evidence. That is the exact opposite of CAGW deniers who are eager to debate and provide their scientific arguments that are soundly based on facts.
This entire blog catalogs the arguments of the deniers which are all supported by the facts.
Read more at CO2 Is Life
Trackback from your site.