I’m confused. I’ve had a few lengthy discussions with an ex-staffer of the Australian Labor Party about Climate Change (which had been conveniently rebranded after Global Warming did not stack up in the face of increasing snowstorms). He was presenting the abatement strategies of the major political parties…
When I instead presented him with material that says, “actually, I don’t think this is actually occurring…”
he was speechless.
I’m a “heretic”, obviously… a “denier” (reminiscent of “Holocaust denier” lol, what a horrible and fallactious ad hominem slur)
Which brings me to the question… is there heresy in science?
I was waiting for him to give me a mathematically verifiable reason about the need and effect of Climate Change abatement. Instead he goes into mute shock that I don’t “believe” in climate change like he does, and he stops talking to me.
I’d like to think I am fairly well versed in the scientific method, in both its principles, the mathematics and the nepotism that can creep into it. I see many warning signs in climate science but, since “the science is settled”, nobody wants to talk mathematics (the language of science) anymore… everyone wants to talk politics.
Here are the main reasons I am very suspicious about this debate:
- When the word “belief” comes into a scientific debate, I am very worried! When the words “prove” and “fact” are bandied around science, I am also very worried!
- Models and extrapolation are not evidence. When the model does not conform to the real world, the model on which the hypothesis becomes invalid (hence the hypothesis is invalid!). The current “elephant in the room” is the data that shows a disconnect between carbon dioxide emissions and a plateau in temperature.
- Data can be manipulated to present a particular result, so access to the raw, unnormalised data is important for auditing particular conclusions, or else mathematical tricks can be used to “hide the decline.”
- Proxy data (such as tree rings) is even easier to manipulate than raw data.
- Detailed information must be provided on the method of experiment, i.e. where measurements were taken, how they were taken, how the averaged values were derived and any homogenisation that was done to the raw data. If this data is denied Freedom of Information disclosure for “proprietary” or other reasons, the experiments should be ruled invalid until everything is submitted for audit.
- Conclusions should be based on a hypothesis that should be verifiable by a repeatable experiment, and the result should be demonstrated a 3 standard deviation confidence level as statistically significant.
- There is a cadre of people who have a vested interest in continuing the climate change industry, such as politicians up for re-election and scientists interviewing to receive grants on fashionable topics. Ergo, we have to take the human element and vested interest out of the debate.
- I am very worried when someone says, “the science is settled” to shut down debate and prevent the audit or revision in scientific results.
For me, this chart is the nail in the coffin, where no statistically significant warming has occurred despite skyrocketing greenhouse gas emissions:
At current, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature initiative is doing a re-evaluation of the data and has conclusions which, at current, are leaning towards supporting Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). It remains to be seen, however, that this study must complete peer review and, furthermore, convince climate skeptics through transparency that the mathematics is correct.
The science definitely isn’t settled- jury is still out.
