Is "climate science" science?
“Climate science” has become a whole lot different to conventional science.
There is a “consensus” about climate science and it is “settled” whereas other aspects of science are founded on specific observations and data.
The Earth’s weather and climate are mind-crushingly complicated. The only way to generate a consensus about “climate change” would be to ask about something blindingly obvious. Yes, 100% of scientists are certain that the Earth is warmer today than 20,000 years ago. Or select an audience who are boosters of the IPCC narrative.
Go to a Maple Leafs game and ask a gaggle of their fans whether their team is going to bring home the Stanley Cup next season they’ll scream in unison “Yes, next year is going to be the year!” Ask other fans and you’d discover that a consensus does not mean its true.
Our world is stupefyingly wonderful and mind-crushingly complicated
You don’t need a PhD to figure out that the world’s climate is complicated. Start by looking up at the clouds. How often do you see exactly the same shape of cloud? (The correct answer is never). Then note the variety of waves you see in the ocean. Then ask the same question about trees and then animals. Then consider the Sun and feel what happens when it disappears behind a thick cloud. Yes, the Sun has an important effect on climate and up close it is stupefyingly wonderful. Now spend 4 minutes watching this video about the discoveries made by the Parker satellite over the last few months that are unexpected. As the narrator concludes, “Parker still has more to do but it is already helping us see our star in a whole new light.”
Real science is never "settled"
Only at high school are scientific questions settled facts. Can gravity be explained by Newton’s inverse square law? A teacher might answer, “Yes, of course; gravity can be measured and predicted.”
A theorist working at the Perimeter Institute, the theoretical physics research centre located in Waterloo, Ontario, is working there because no one knows the answers to foundational questions about the world around us –including gravity.
The hubris of "climate scientists" is breathtaking
Even more breathtaking than the Sun is the hubris of “climate scientists” who imagine that they understand all of this – including gravity.
It would be like the medical community claiming that they have figured out human biology and can forecast and heal all human disease.
Let's be precise
Science is not comprised of textbooks of proven theories, instead it is like a living, breathing ill-defined collection of organisms that is made up of millions of practitioners, hundreds of thousands of institutions, countless numbers of competing ideas and zettabytes of data.
The sinews of science are made of specific observations and data that are spelled out in often tedious detail in scientific papers.
The next time you hear a “climate scientist” make a claim about global warming caused by human-generated carbon dioxide being a scientific certainty ask, “Precisely what observations and data are you so certain about?”
It is statistically certain, without a flicker of a doubt, a substantiated, observable fact and 100% guaranteed that you will not get a straight answer.
Climate science has become Orwellian
Another strange characteristic of “climate science” is that words have become shorthand for various concepts that are more ideological than scientific.
“Science” has come to mean a consensus about adhering to the Alarmist storyline, rather than the pursuit of objective truth.
“Denier” means everyone who does not conform to the party line – although in a surprising reversal of meaning it is the skeptics who believe that the climate has, and will, change, whereas the Alarmists deny it has changed much in the past three thousand years.
“Climate change” has come to mean that the climate is changing primarily because of human-generated carbon dioxide, and “carbon taxes” are a viable means of preventing climate catastrophes.
"Climate science" will be remembered as an abberation
Just a quick scan of the history of science uncovers many ideas that were the accepted wisdom for long periods that in hindsight are clearly nutty. Here are a few: alchemy, aether, phrenology, geocentric Earth, bloodletting, radium treatments, lobotomies and Lysenkoism. Another was the four humors: blood, phlegm, yellow bile and black bile that physicians believed governed human health. That wisdom persisted for over a thousand years.
And another more recent example: Just 20 years ago the medical establishment was convinced that doctors had an obligation to treat pain, even mild pain, by prescribing opioids. A few vocal advocates argued that there was no strong evidence that opioids were addictive. How did that turn out? The resulting crisis has caused over 200,000 deaths in North America. It would be hard to find a doctor who prescribed opioids who now does not kick themselves wishing that early on they had demanded to look at the scientific evidence, and then had the courage to step forward and state loudly that treating pain with opioids could be disastrous.
Well accepted science that turned out to be nutty – and dangerous
The idea that human-generated carbon dioxide has a major effect on the Earth’s climate and that if humans stopped burning fossil fuels completely it would prevent the climate from changing is another truly nutty idea.
In generations to come historians of science will roll their eyes and wonder how an apparently advanced society could believe such an idea in the same way we look back and shake our heads about how Europeans for three centuries hunted witches who were “weather cooking” and causing weather that appeared unnatural. Around 50,000 witches were put to death.