Thursday, January 28, 2010


Flood plains began to resemble the Father of Waters during recent storms that dumped in excess of five inches of rain on much of Southern California. It wasn’t exactly the “Grapes of Wrath” scenario that’s been spun by global warming enthusiasts.

Though a week-long storm constitutes only anecdotal evidence, it’s worth noting that prudential caveats are almost never mentioned when a weather event or natural disaster can possibly be spun in favor of the catastrophic global warming theory.

Hurricanes, and even earthquakes, have been utilized by the carbon-dioxide-is-a-pollutant crowd to create evidence that global warming is bringing about one apocalypse after the other. Unfortunately, to the great chagrin of climatological catastrophists, recent hurricane seasons have been remarkably mild—and now much of the hoped for California Sahara has already met its seasonal quota for rainfall.

If that good news isn’t bad enough, consider the catastrophic revelations from East Anglia, the intellectual epicenter of England’s immensely profitable climate disaster industry. E-mail suggest that the “settled science” of global warming is being “settled” by massaging data and silencing reputable critics.

Now comes news that the ballyhooed melting of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 was a fraudulent assertion promoted to encourage reluctant Asian countries to jump on the global warming bandwagon.

But never mind those incriminating e-mail or bogus predictions or flourishing polar bears. Global warming, as George Will has noted, has become the religion of the elite—and a godsend for Marxists without another credible rationale for placing everything from auto companies to cow toots under government control.

Like any religion, believers in global warming have an answer for any eventuality. Thus, “climate change” accommodates even global cooling. In the words of MSNBC’s true believer, Rachel Maddow: “global warming probably means extreme weather of all kinds.”

Anyone familiar with the philosophy of science knows that a theory that accommodates all possible data isn’t falsifiable. And any theory that isn’t falsifiable, as the philosopher Karl Popper observed, is ideology—not science.

For those who like their science without a heavy ideological dressing, I recommend Ian Plimer’s recently released book, “Heaven and Earth.” It’s a work by a highly respected Australian geologist that Gov. Schwarzenegger should consult the next time a government-enhancing “green” bill lands on his desk.

In the meantime climate-changers can only hope that polar bears stop propagating and that Southern California starts to resemble the desert it’s supposed to become. Absent such bad news, ordinary citizens might start to consider the very tangible jobs and revenue available from offshore oil wells.


Anonymous said...

How is global warming science accommodating all possible data? And be careful not to mistake vulgarizers of climate science for actual authorities on the matter.

Is Popper considered the orthodox position within philosophy of science and related fields?

RKirk said...

The term "global warming" was purposely changed to "climate change" a few years ago in order to accommodate any possible "change" in climate. Since climate is constantly changing and since even colder weather is accommodated under the "climate change" banner, it is fair to say that the theory that was once called "global warming" now accommodates all possible data. I can imagine, given the immense amount of government funding that accompanies the "climate change" hysteria, that even a long span of steady temperatures would be greeted as "evidence" for the theory--since the "norm" is temperature fluxuations, and thus failure to change would be a "change."

Karl Popper's view about "falsifiability" is the only reasonable philosophical view of scientific procedure. His theory of science has been around for decades--and is routinely cited by scholars who discuss the philosophy of science.

It is worth noting that there are a large number of extremely well qualified and credentialed skeptics of a theory whose primary evidence comes from computer models--an evidentiary source that is notoriously circular.

In addition to Ian Plimer, consider also the comments of MIT climatologist Richard Lindzen--among many others. Lindzen should be, but isn't listed, in this article about prominent skeptics.