The problem with Climate Change beyond if it is man made or not

At risk of being labeled a fanatical flat-earther I am not a believer in global warming climate change, but the biggest part of my skepticism comes from this simple fact:

Karl Popper, the late, great philosopher of science, noted that for something to be called scientific, it must be, as he put it, “falsifiable.” That is, for something to be scientifically true, you must be able to test it to see if it’s false. That’s what scientific experimentation and observation do. That’s the essence of the scientific method.Karl Popper, the late, great philosopher of science, noted that for something to be called scientific, it must be, as he put it, “falsifiable.” That is, for something to be scientifically true, you must be able to test it to see if it’s false. That’s what scientific experimentation and observation do. That’s the essence of the scientific method.

But for all of the 1990’s it was getting hot because of global warming and the record summer highs, drought conditions in some areas, and a few mild winters proved it.  That was followed by it stopping to continue on those highs and then very cold winters, snow in places for the first time in decades (and some in over a century) and you were an idiot if you ever thought global warming (now climate change) ever meant it was only going to get cold.

To summerize:

No matter what happens, it always confirms their basic premise that the world is getting hotter. The weather turns cold and wet? It’s global warming, they say. Weather turns hot? Global warming. No change? Global warming. More hurricanes? Global warming. No hurricanes? You guessed it.

Nothing can disprove their thesis.

At this point I will not even entertain any talk or debate on the subject until some supporter of climate change (man made or otherwise) can tell exactly what has to occur in the real world for the theory to be disproved until that time it is not science but fanatical faith.  It is pointless to continue to debate the topic until the purveyors of this theory will at least admit there is a way to disprove and debunk it.  All many of the debates in this world I think too much time is being argued over results when the real question and debate should be the underlying assumptions that are used to make the argument.

(in case you are wondering I believe the overwhelming fact in the weather has nothing to do with us and is almost all about solar activity)

About m.kelliher.gibson

  • Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

  • Vote3rdpartynow

    But all the beautiful people have said that it is unquestionable.  They have told us that the debate is over.  They have told us the facts are beyond reproach.  

    Watch the video below as it is the trifecta of moonbat-ism.  Ted Turner claims that without immediate attention to global warming we will turn into Somalia, become cannibals, and be a failed state.  The only way to stop it is to stop breeding, i.e. control the population. “There are too many people”.  

    Think about the logic for a moment  – Ted Turner is afraid that if we don’t spend money on fighting global warming that we will all die and the earth will no longer be able to sustain the current population.  So the answer is – decrease the population.  Isn’t that different ways to the same end?  

  • Skeptical Science
  • Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming
  • Painstaking takedown of Lord Monckton
  • The Al Gore religion of Bernie Madoff Global Carbon Banking might be a hard sell now after climategate but as a result of that news of geo-engineering efforts to alleviate the mythological temperature rise and Guam tipping over and sinking into the ocean or thinking that exploding people who don’t subscribe to the green religion(1010global.org) is “funny”.

    OK, the Air Force wants over the horizon radar.  Well the sky can be sprayed, or maybe they could us the weather as a weapon.  Edward Teller has patents on such things.  The “tin foil hat” people have global networks talking about chemtrails.

    Maurice Strong was one of the premier long term architects of the global energy taxation scam.  I happen to believe there is a top super secret alternative energy source that would replace oil but you can’t do that due to the economics of displacing the entire oil industry.

    We are going to die much faster due to retarded social, political, economic and Islam as Russia’s replacement enemy for the MIC than we are from the unicorn of carbon trading.

  • edfactor

    Mr. Gibson –

    You are correct that many people (politicians, citizens) use non-falsifiable (and therefore invalid) hypotheses. All forms of weather somehow prove that global warming is happening. This is nonsense, and should be rejected as such.

    However the real scientists don’t make arguments in that way.

    Here is an example of a falsifiable hypothesis:

    – The carbon that is released by burning of fossil fuels is what is responsible for the increase in carbon that we see in the atmosphere, not from livestock gasses, forest fires, or the activities of volcanoes.

    It turns out that there are different kinds of carbon (12, 13, 14) 12 and 13 are stable, and 14 is radioactive – (used for carbon dating).

    Living things (like plants) absorb vastly more Carbon 12 more than Carbon 13. Also, all very old carbon no longer has 14 in it – as it has decayed.

    So if the warming was all volcanoes, you would have very little radioactive carbon, some 12, and more 13.

    If it was from new plants (fires) you would have lots of 14 and 12, but not much 13.

    If it was very old plants (which turned to oil) you would have no 14 (it all decayed) lots of 12 (which plants like) but not much 13.

    So…… when you look at the ratio of isotopes of all the new carbon in the atmosphere, you see:

    – Not much extra 14

    – Lots more 12

    – Not much 13

    This is great evidence that the new carbon comes from very old plants (millions of years old).

    This is just one of a few examples of scientists testing falsifiable hypotheses and showing evidence. This one does not show that the carbon is causing the warming we see, only that it is very likely that the carbon is from us, not other sources.

    (The link between the carbon and the temperature is less certain, but we have a lot of good evidence there, as well)

    You are correct that we should reject the non-falsifiable hypotheses commonly used with global warming. Regrettably, we hear them too often.