Today at the American Thinker Vijay Jayaraj and Calvin Beisner in a post entitled Climate Scientist Admit Exaggerated Warming, points out that now even some scientists within the UN IPCC are beginning to admit this climate alarmism is just more fear porn propaganda. Greta Thunberg, take note.
Last week, a group of scientists sent shock waves through the climate-science community. They boldly pointed out that current climate models exaggerate greenhouse warming.
In other words, they confirmed what climate skeptics have been arguing all along: that most computer climate models forecast unrealistic warming -- warming not observed anywhere in the real world.The authors take some time to explain what science is really all about. Science is not a group of facts that one can point to. Instead, various facts grow out of the scientific method. That method is first to imagine a hypothesis. Then, design an experiment to test the hypothesis and prove it wrong. Either way, you publish your results so that others can design experiments to prove your hypothesis is wrong. Assuming enough people can not prove you wrong, your hypothesis is provisionally accepted as the "truth" and enters the world of scientific "facts." But everything we know from science is just a theory. In theory, even the so called "law" of gravity is just a provisional theory that hasn't been proven wrong yet. Issac Newton can rest easy in his grave. But don't think there is someone out there that will put a dent in Newton's theory, because we do not know how or why it does what it does. We just know the effects.
Science is not a body of facts. It is a method of finding facts -- a method that is inherently skeptical. Not cynically skeptical, but humbly skeptical. It insists, as the motto of the Royal Society, nullius in verba, roughly translated “take nobody’s word for it,” that a scientist’s every claim be tested -- over and over and over. Thus, as the philosopher of science Robert K. Merton put it in 1938, “Most institutions demand unqualified faith; but the institution of science makes skepticism a virtue.”
Science is also not a computer model that has not be successfully tested against past climate conditions. In other words, if you wanted to test the model, you would put the actual variables into that model which were obtained in a certain year. You would then run it, and then see if the results match what actually happened. You would think that this had been done. You would be wrong. Not a single model can accurately predict past climates, therefore why trust them to predict the future? But that is not why you are inundated with climate alarmism. You are being alarmed because if you panic enough, you might buy into the snake oil they are selling, which will leave you much poorer and they much richer. Oh, and you know who the "they" are.
Look, there are hundreds of things of late where the "party of science" spouts absolute lunacy, and where the so called "facts" have so far proven them wrong. It is not just the Global Cooling...er...Warming...er... Climate Change issue. It is the whole transgender issue. Whatever you think you are, the fact is you are born with either xx or xy chromosomes. Those chromosomes do not change no matter that you mutilate yourself with surgery. There really is no such thing as a "transgender." Then there are the mask mandates and vaccination mandates. When people wear masks, it is a sign that they have bought into the very unscientific idea that masks will protect them. This is the sort of magical thinking that says a St. Christopher medal wards off traffic accidents. But viruses are so small, that when confronted by a thread of a mask, it "sees" a grove of trees, each tree representing a strand of the fabric that is twisted into a thread. The virus easily rushes through that grove. When it sees a pore between threads, it looks to the virus like an open football field. Hundreds go through per second. that is the point Clay Travis is making here. You don't have to take my word for it, do your own research.
No comments:
Post a Comment