Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Science or "Unscience"?

Bill Nye is a "science guy", right? So can he explain the science of AGW?

In a word, no.  If you want some of that, try this: 

He explains some facts, assumptions and some opinions about how to interpret those facts. He does not explain any of the reasons why it would be rational to doubt the prevailing conjecture about AGW. He does not explain how a conjecture might become a hypothesis, theory or law (in the language of science). He does not explain that the scientific method can only be applied to AGW through modeling, and those models have not yet accurately predicted temperature rises - thus, de facto, AGW is not proved. He does not point out that CO2 levels, supposedly rising continuously, do not correlate with observed temperatures. He does not point out that CO2 is off gassed from the oceans if they warm, and thus rising CO2 levels may simply be a trailing indicator of non-anthropogenic warming. He does not point out the problems associated with using ice core data to establish "historical norms" of CO2 concentrations. And, he fails to mention that no one really knows what will happen if the earth is warming; there are guesses, calculations and fears, but no certainty. Strong cases can be made for either net disaster or net improvement. 

Thus, Bill Nye is a fraud. He should require that he meet the standard of the scientific method, vice parroting Al Gore and the Chicken Littles. Popularized science has given us "science by consensus", which has no part of the scientific method. If it did, we could just take a vote of "scientists", and whichever side gets 51% of the vote gets to decide what is true or not.

Lastly, this case against CO2 can be boiled down to one simple fact. If AGW is real, it may only be solved by prosperity or mass murder of humans. I've seen not a single plan for reducing CO2 emissions that does not require that billions be impoverished, and thus millions will die at the hands of government fumbling.

No comments:

Post a Comment