I’m not such a sceptic that I think the severity of our current winter weather disproves the global warming hypothesis, but it doesn’t exactly add to the credibility of the warmist lobby. The standard response to this is to point out that colder winters are compatible with the theory (see George Monbiot’s article entitled “The snow outside it what global warming looks like”). But that suggests something else, namely, that the theory isn’t wrong, but meaningless. If I recall my Karl Popper correctly, one of the conditions that a meaningful scientific theory has to satisfy is that it should be falsifiable. If heavier-than-average snowfall doesn’t constitute disproof of the theory, then it’s hard to imagine what would – and that, in turn, suggests the theory is meaningless.Indeed.
It's a point that's often missed. There's no need to get down in the weeds and start discussing the finer points of satellite data or statistical techniques. Simply from first principles, global warming fails the basic test of a scientific theory - it doesn't make any predictions.
Put it this way, if E = M x (C Squared) and C is a constant, then we can predict exactly how much energy will be produced by a given mass. If it was ever observed that a different amount of energy was produced, then the theory would be DOA. That's because it's real science. Meanwhile, global warming theory is more like claiming that E is kind of related to M, but who can tell, and give us your wallet anyway or the Earth will fall into the Sun.
8 comments:
Am I the only person who can remember that just a few short years ago the "scientific consensus" was that winters in Britain would become milder and wetter, and that if you disagreed with this you were a creationist nazi denier?
My other point is that when unusual weather appears to support the Warmist position it is climate, but when it goes against the Warmist position it is mere weather.
Among the testable predictions of Einstein's Theory of Relativity was that large objects like the Sun bent light. This was tested by Eddington in 1919 and found to be true. This does not "prove" Relativity but, had the test failed, it would have been conclusive evidence that there was something seriously wrong with the theory.
BTW for your edification this site shows how everything is caused by global warming.
AGW theory is like reading Nostradamus. After the event, believers invariably detect the relevant passages that foretold the event. Unfortunately no one can do this in advance.
AGW is pretty much the same. They have coherent narratives for both hotter and colder winters.
"Am I the only person who can remember that just a few short years ago the "scientific consensus" was that winters in Britain would become milder and wetter..."
You aren't.
I dont buy into AGW anymore.
Warmist claims that current cold weather is just a blip on an otherwise warming trend might carry a bit more weight if they hadnt been so quick to claim every hot summer as proof of AGW.
A reasonable position would be that we simply dont have enough data yet.
And to get into those weeds...
Climategate showed that the CRU had consistently reduced the number of weather stations it collected data from. Something no credible scientist would do.
Let's say that global warming really is happening and that these record cold winters are compatible with it. Fine, I'll accept that as a viable theory. But, if global warming can include record low temperatures and cold weather as part of the general trend, then what that means is that global warming is an academically interesting phenomenon to climatologists and statisticians and not the humanity-wrecking catastrophe that's been sold to us.
Well, if the answer to this 'humanity-wrecking catastrophe' is higher taxes & lower standards of living for the proles, while the elite live it up in their mansions, that should give you a clue to the bogosity (is that even a word?) of the claim...
Climate scientists have been right for decades - they projected that the planet would warm up, and indeed it has. 2010 is just about the warmest year on record despite us seeing the deepest and longest solar minimum for 100 years.
Post a Comment