(Manhattan Contrarian | Francis Menton) - If you follow closely the subject of hypothesized human-caused global warming, you probably regularly experience, as I do, a strong sense of cognitive dissonance. On the one hand, you read dozens of pieces from seemingly authoritative media sources, as well as from important political officeholders, declaring that the causal relationship between human CO2 emissions and rapidly rising global temperatures is definitive; declaring that “the science is settled”; and further declaring that impending further increases in temperatures over the next decade or several decades are an “existential crisis” that must be addressed immediately through complete transformation of our economy at enormous cost.
On the other hand, you studied the scientific method back in high school, and you can’t help asking yourself the basic questions that that method entails:
- What is the falsifiable hypothesis that is claimed to have been empirically validated? You can’t find it!
- What was the null hypothesis, and what about the data caused the null hypothesis to be rejected? You can’t find that either!
- Where can you get access to the methodology (computer code) and the full data set that was used in the hypothesis validation process; and are those sufficient to fully replicate the results? You can’t find these things either!
- You learn that there have been major after-the-fact adjustments to the principal data sets that are used to claim rapidly warming global temperatures and to justify press releases claiming that a given year or month was the “hottest ever.” You look to see if you can find details supporting the data alterations, and you learn that such details are not available, as if they are some kind of top-secret from the Soviet Union. (You can read my 23-part series on this subject at this link.)
What’s going on here? If this is “science,” it’s some kind of “science” that turns the scientific method that you thought you understood on its head. . . . Read the whole thing here.