The Unscience of Algore

"An additional strength of the falsifiability criterion is that it makes possible a clear distinction between science properly speaking and the opinions of scientists on nonscientific subjects. We have seen in recent years a growing tendency to treat as "scientific" anything that scientists say or believe. The debates over stem cell research, for example, have often been described, both within the scientific community and in the mass media, as clashes between science and religion. It is true that many, but by no means all, of the most vocal defenders of embryonic stem cell research were scientists, and that many, but by no means all, of its most vocal opponents were religious. But in fact, there was little science being disputed: the central controversy was between two opposing views on a particular ethical dilemma, neither of which was inherently more scientific than the other. If we confine our definition of the scientific to the falsifiable, we clearly will not conclude that a particular ethical view is dictated by science just because it is the view of a substantial number of scientists. The same logic applies to the judgments of scientists on political, aesthetic, or other nonscientific issues. If a poll shows that a large majority of scientists prefers neutral colors in bathrooms, for example, it does not follow that this preference is "scientific.""  

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-folly-of-scientism  

Anthropogenic global warming conjecture, anyone?  We have more carbon in the air but a flat average worldwide temp for fifteen years - the "carbon drives temperatures" conjecture is FALSE. There's room for a more nuanced approach, but the complete absurdity of Algore's "the science is settled" statement grows more apparent by the second.