Let's face it. It's time to talk about the elephant in the room. Finally. It's been covered extensively in mainstream media across the world in the past couple of weeks. Now the highly reluctant and shamed American mainstream media has no choice but to start to report on it.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Not wild claims without foundations. Not imaginary projections. Pictures of polar bears stranded on ice is not evidence for AGW. Nor are opinions on when so-and-so glacier will melt in the future without scientific foundation. The anthropogenic global warming movement is floundering because it is not based on logical arguments and good science. It is based on "truthiness". This truthiness foundation has now been exposed.
1) If it were real science, it would be transparent (unlike the way the IPPC has operated).
2) Real science doesn't involve mysterious disappearing data. We're all just supposed to take their word that the dog ate the homework, like in the Chinese samples?
3) Real science doesn't hinge on a propriety computer modeling program that nobody else has access to and can test and experiment with. I read that now, suddenly, they're going to let outsiders use their program, test it, and subject themselves to actual peer review.
4) Real science can be replicated by other people. See points 2 and 3 above.
5) Real science involves research and facts, rather than opinions and truthiness. See the "glaciergate" and the "rainforestgate" and points 2, 3, 4 above.
6) Real science can be used to accurately predict things. Absolutely NOTHING has ever been predicted with any accuracy by the AGW proponents. Period.
7) There is no final authority body in science which you can’t challenge. Maybe, just maybe, that's finally sinking in. Is it?
The "science" of the man-made global warming movement fails on every point above, all required by the way every other science works. COMPARE THIS WITH REAL SCIENCE. LIKE, SAY, EVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE. IT MEETS ALL THE ABOVE SCIENTIFIC CRITERIA IN SPADES.
What we've seen out of these people is NOT science by any acceptable standard. Nor are their arguments logical. They've built a mountain out of logical fallacies like Appealing to Authority and Confusing Causation with Correlation, while trying everything they can to block and ridicule healthy skepticism and the normal process of peer review and the way in which science works.
And then there’s that massive transfer of wealth in tax dollars with no certainty that anything real is being accomplished or can be proven to be accomplished. Truthiness is not good enough to support this kind of expenditure. Just like truthiness wasn't good enough to start the Iraq war, for example.
The AGW movement have built what resembles a religion more than anything else. It is based on faith and rejects all skepticism out of hand, typically with name-calling and defensive ridicule. And that is why it has crumbled when the facts are simply brought out of the closet, and it is placed under a skeptical eye.
The elephant in the room has been identified. It can no longer be ignored. I say, let real scientists and skeptics lead the way in reassessing and reforming AGW study. It doesn't seem implausible that there's something to it. It seems likely to have a minor influence, IMHO. However, truthiness has no place in science -- especially such expensive science on the largest public scale.
shows how desparate some are to deny reality.
