I previously posted an entry in which I outlined my reasons for being skeptical about man made global warming, or global cooling, or climate change, or whatever it’s being called this week. In response, I received a number of less than complimentary responses saying the question had been answered using the scientific method and if I still didn’t get it—well, you can probably imagine the names flying around.
Looking through the responses, I saw statements that climate change had been “proven” by the scientific method, one of the very things I tried to point out had not happened. This lead me to realize that one likely problem with discourse between me and those who disagree is a misunderstanding of what the scientific method is and what it does.
Without going back through all the reasons why I was skeptical of the results (please see previous post), which ultimately are due to the scientific method NOT being followed, I simply can not understand why so many people accept unproven results. Based on this and other comments I have heard, it appears people from both camps have a basic misunderstanding of HOW the scientific method works and WHAT it does.
Almost everyone is taught that the scientific method works something like this:
- Hypothesis, what you think might be the outcome
- Testing, make an effort to show that expected results are achieved
- Publish, allow peer review and criticism
- Acceptance of the hypothesis as true.
But the critical words most leave out are “FOR NOW”. Leaving out experimental bias (you get the answer you’re looking for), you can’t test this, you can only model it, and modeling is it’s own special brand of hell when it comes to bias. And as previously mentioned, there are staggering problems with variations in the input data relative to the expected outcome.
But the real problem here is with the very idea that the scientific method “proves” anything, because it doesn’t. IT SIMPLY SUPPORTS A FINDING THAT THE BEST KNOWLEDGE WE HAVE TODAY SUPPORTS THE HYPOTHESIS. And climate change doesn’t even meet this standard.
One of the more simple examples used to illustrate the point: Hypothesis, all swans are white Testing, observe 1,000,000 swans, all are white, hypothesis supported. Observation 1,000,001, a black swan. Hypothesis dis-proven. And there is the fundamental misunderstanding, the scientific method can never PROVE anything, IT CAN ONLY DISPROVE IT. One can have a million, or billion, or trillion data points supporting the hypothesis, IT ONLY TAKES ONE TO DISPROVE IT.
Climate change has a history of predictions not being accurate (i.e., dis-proven). It has a history of attempting to bully those who disagree (dissenting peer reviews not allowed). It has a history of distorting findings to support the conclusions it wants to see (the infamous hockey stick graph). In short, it falls woefully short of following the scientific method from it’s methodology, tactics, and false conclusions.
So—you can choose to believe it, but please stop telling me I’m wrong for using logic to disagree. You can choose to believe it, but please stop telling me we have to make the world uninhabitable for half the current population to try and stop it. You can choose to believe it, but stop calling for the expenditure of public finds to fight your version of a demon.
Separation of church and state is required by the Constitution for a reason, one man’s beliefs in the un-provable and unknowable are no reason to subject other men to those beliefs. And at it’s core, climate change is a religion for those who have nothing else to believe in.Gary Batey is a former DOW component executive now engaged in entrepreneurial efforts. As a conservative capitalist and family man, he’s worried America is on the wrong track. He says concerned political leaders are no longer following the Constitution and are using manufactured crises as a means of undermining the foundation of America. “I believe in free enterprise, personal responsibility, and giving a hand up, but never a hand out. I believe a government that thinks it gives rights and liberty, is the single greatest danger to those rights and liberties.”
To follow Gary’s blog, go to blog.bizness4america.com