Climate change alarmists pretend their alarmism is based on real science, yet they refuse to treat their so-called science as real science. For example there is no scientific principle of consensus. In order to scientific a theory must be testable. Further no test can prove a theory true. However one test that does not collaborate the theory proves it false. Those any particular theory can either unconfirmed or falsified. Test a particular theory one hundred time, and get ninety nine confirmation and one falsification. The Al Gore’s, and other mental midgets, would claim the theory to true based on ninety-nine percent consensus. On the the other hand, a scientist would consider the theory falsified. The climate alarmist do not accept the idea of falsification: from Watts Up with That:
President Barack Obama’s chief science adviser compared the Trump administration’s use of “red teams” to debate climate science to a “kangaroo court” meant to “create a sense of continuing uncertainty about the science of climate change.”
“But I suspect that most of the advocates of the scheme are disingenuous, aiming to get hand-picked non-experts from federal agencies to dispute the key findings of mainstream climate science and then assert that the verdict of this kangaroo court has equal standing with the findings of the most competent bodies in the national and international scientific communities,” former President Barack Obama’s science czar John Holdren wrote in a Boston Globe op-ed published Monday.
John Holdren meet Karl Popper, from Stanford Enclyclopedia:
[Karl] Popper accordingly repudiates induction and rejects the view that it is the characteristic method of scientific investigation and inference, substituting falsifiability in its place. It is easy, he argues, to obtain evidence in favour of virtually any theory, and he consequently holds that such ‘corroboration’, as he terms it, should count scientifically only if it is the positive result of a genuinely ‘risky’ prediction, which might conceivably have been false. For Popper, a theory is scientific only if it is refutable by a conceivable event. Every genuine test of a scientific theory, then, is logically an attempt to refute or to falsify it, and one genuine counter-instance falsifies the whole theory. In a critical sense
A Swiss patent clerk once challenged Sir Isaac Newton’s consensus Laws of Mechanics. Newton lost. So why does Holden thing his pet theory is exempt from critical Analysis when Newton’s(and Albert Eisenstein’s) was not?
Print This Post
Subscribe to RSS feed
