Climate “Science:” Making the Galileo Fallacy True since 1998

Another climate scientist defects to the skeptics, is purged.

The five contributing scientists submitted the paper to Environmental Research Letters – a highly regarded journal – but were told it had been rejected. A scientist asked by the journal to assess the paper under the peer review process reportedly wrote: ‘It is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of “errors” and worse from the climate sceptics media side.

At this point, I simply assume anyone who uses a version of “because science” is lying.

Loading Likes...

2 thoughts on “Climate “Science:” Making the Galileo Fallacy True since 1998

  1. Gary

    You must not speak the truth, Comrade, because your words might be useful to the Enemies of the People.

    Climate apostate, Bengtsson, quoted by Ace from an interview at Spiegel Online:
    To aim for a simplistic course of action in an area that is as complex and as incompletely understood as the climate system does not make sense at all in my opinion.

    Of course it makes sense–if your goal is to grab as much power and control as quickly as possible. Then it makes perfect sense.

    “The Science” makes no sense and neither do the policy implications the Alwarmists draw from “The Science”:

    1) They keep telling us that “weather is not climate” (unless, of course, when they can use current weather to scare people into buying their theory), because they’re dealing with long-term trends that will unfold over the next 50 – 200 years. Fine. That means you need to make a series of correct predictions (eg each covering a 10-20 year span, at least) to validate your models. But they insist the models are correct NOW and “the debate is over” even though their models failed to predict the warming hiatus during the last 15 years.

    2) The Alwarmists claim the best course is to cut back drastically on carbon-based energy, but admit that even huge CO2 reductions–which won’t happen, especially with China and India building coal-fired power plants at an astonishing rate–will have at most a marginal effect over the next century.

    From this they conclude that draconian actions must begin right away. But why not draw the exact opposite conclusion? If almost nothing can be accomplished over the next 100 years, surely there’s only a microscopic difference between starting now or 35 years from now–at which point, maybe their models will actually be validated (or invalidated), and vastly superior technology will be available to deal with the problem, if a serious problem actually exists.

    Once again, the behavior makes much more sense if you assume these folks are trying to strike when the iron is hot and arrogate to themselves as much money, control and power as possible.
    And ditto with item 1): real science would patiently gather data, reexamine theories, assumptions and models, and slowly aggregate a convincing mass of evidence. Phony, politicized “Science” would rush to judgment, assert a bogus “consensus,” reject contrary evidence and vilify and silence apostates–all in order to grab as much power as quickly as possible before the critical mass of hysteria wanes.

    1. severian Post author

      But…but….but…. China is already passing comprehensive anti-AGW bills!!!

      Or, you know, not.

      That thread is a perfect example of Alwarmist technique — in fact, I coined the term “moonwalking” largely to describe the antics of that particular group of idiots. Lie, and when you’re busted on the lie, retreat back to your one “verified” (=”can’t be readily disproven…yet”) claim, and make a bunch of noises about how that’s all you were talking about, and how could anyone read anything more into it, and why do you hate science?

Comments are closed.