Global Warming Hoax and how unscience begets unscience

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Hit Tip to Green Hell Blog for the Video

Earlier this week hackers broke into the computers at the Hadley CRU, one of the four institutes feeding data to the UN's IPCC.  The information that was released as a result is playing out its own little doomsday scenario on AGW science's credibility.  A UK Telegraph writer has a great breakdown of some of the more juicy details found in the hacked information, here.  However, while you watch the global warming hoax unravel, make sure to be mindful of how unscience begets more unscience.

What am I talking about?  Long before these emails were released, estimates from AGW scientists simply did not make sense.  Let me give you an example from one of my earlier posts:

The holy Grail of AGW reports, the IPCC, was estimating average global temperatures over the next 100 years, using data from the last 100 years.  Of those temperatures, any rational person would maybe grant that the last 40 years of temperatures were accurate (that's when they started using satellites to measure temperature).  If I were making an economic model with as many points in my forecast as were in my data set, I would be laughed at.  Read more here.

Such problems were annoying, but easily side stepped by the AGW crowd by justifying their unscience with more unscience.  Anyone raising these concerns were shrugged off or labeled crazy.  How scientific of them.  Thus, over the years as criticism mounted over the AGW unscience, AGW scientists were spared the rigorousness of being scientific in exchange for a bully pulpit, a microphone and a chance to play world politics.  

Problems such as the fact that the earth has been much cooler and much hotter regardless of human activity were no obstacles to the unscience of AGW.  Ian Plimer, an Australian scientist and AGW skeptic has often pointed out that in the history of the entire planet, we are in a cool period.  Today, even the most ardent AGW scientist would not disagree that the planet has been cooling for the last 4 years (many others say 10 years).  They shrug.  "Temperatures are not constantly going up, they go up and down, but trend up," the AGW crowd says without a single explanation for the temperature drop.  Does no one see the problem with declaring the issue of rising temperatures settled science even as they have no clue what is causing the receding of temperatures? A problem with a model is a problem that needs an answer according to the scientific method.  Instead, what we got was Al Gore marketing, PR and polar bears.

Instead of dealing with the unscience of their science, they chose more uscience.  Now that the house of cards is falling, don't expect them to fall back to any body of science they've been perfecting for vindication.  That is what I would do if I were using science and not unscience to promote my theory.  I'd show the world my books, my data, and let rational thought prevail.  That is not what will happen here.  It's back to the bully pulpit and unscience for these fakers.  Instead, we are about to experience a rapid expansion of even more unscience.  There will be blame games.  There will be denials.  There will be name calling, cover ups and finger pointing and none of it will have anything to do with science.  As it all unfolds, don't get caught up in the idea that real science is about to parade triumphantly down the street.  What you are about to see is the explosion of unscience.  

Evidence that the Unscience is Exploding

Newsbusters on MSM's blackout of the scandal

More recently exposed unscience

Absorption of CO2 has increased, not deteriorating and deforestation's impact embellished.


CJ said...

I know you're trying to be funny and not scientific, but it's hard to criticize science when your entire point is unscientific. Science tries to get data before drawing conclusions. Science welcomes testing hypotheses that disprove current theories. You start with an answer, an answer that is probably wrong but we wish were right, and proceed from your conclusion to look for evidence. That's the opposite of science.

November 25, 2009 at 4:24 PM

CJ - you'll need to point out the part where "I've started with an answer." My answer as in my views on the validity of global warming? My views on the climate emails?

November 25, 2009 at 4:31 PM

oh and I wasn't criticizing science, I was criticizing unscience. I have zero problem with science.

November 25, 2009 at 6:37 PM
Eman said...

Darn it anyways.... I live in Wisconsin. I was all supportive of this warming thing.

These hacked emails, weather or not the puppet press covers them, are a God-send. This crap would have broke the bank.(Like OB hasn't already) Whoever did this is a hero.

November 25, 2009 at 8:35 PM
The Right Guy said...

It isn't science, but politics mixed with religion. I think some call it socialism. This is on the same scale as when Galileo had to repent. He was correct, but religion overruled him. In this case "science" took the role of a dogmatic religion and someone revealed the clowns behind the curtain.

I for one never believed in this anthropogenic climate change BS. It is no different that sacrificing people so the sun comes up.

November 25, 2009 at 9:23 PM

Post a Comment