Saturday, December 14, 2013

"The Science Is Settled"

When it doesn't support their Church of Global Warming dogma, it's "weather".  When it does, e.g. "Superstorm Sandy" (when did we start naming storms, anyway?), it's "evidence":
#NARRATIVEFAIL: Five Years Ago Today: Al Gore Predicted the North Pole Will Be Ice Free in 5 Years. “Today Cairo had its first snowfall in 100 years.”
Instapundit has a wit that I enjoy.

(You don't believe Saint Al said this?  You want video evidence?  I got'cher video evidence right here.)


Anonymous said...

Al Gore = not a scientist. He's a politician and thus free to babble on like all politicians do.

A politician said something not born out in facts? Let me mark the calendar and celebrate the anniversary.

Real scientists know AGW is real, in progress, and getting worse.

Darren said...

Whatever you need to tell yourself. I didn't hear you, or any other leftie, complaining that he wasn't a scientist back when he was actually getting attention for his views.

allen (in Michigan) said...

The first thing to consider is the tag-line to the post.

In science there's no such thing as "settled" science. All science is always up for grabs and some landmark experiments are repeated to this day and not just as training exercises for budding scientists.

"Settled science" is a rhetorical construct meant to cut off discussion and, especially, disagreement.

The problem for proponents of anthropogenic global warming is that their favorite hypothesis has never been the beneficiary of a demonstration proof so they try to substitute various lesser means of establishing it as, well, not scientifically valid but politically beyond reproach.

That's why we're bombarded with endless predictions, none of which ever pan out, graphs of dubious honesty and, my favorite replacement for science, the scientific consensus. As if three scientists nodding in unison established scientific validity whereas two scientist did not.

In science the consensus emerges after the demonstration proof's been replicated. If the experiment's beyond criticism then the results stand and disagreement requires a valid critique or you're just slinging scats. That works in politics but hardly ever, and never for very long, in science.

maxutils said...

It doesn't matter ... unless we can get the rest of the world, particularly China and India, on board. There's nothing wrong with trying to reduce environmental impacts, though, when it makes economical sense. Just look at how much fuel economy went up when OPEC started jacking up prices ... using less gas is a good thing, and doesn't harm anyone.