Any good scientist will tell anyone who asks them about ‘new theories’ words to the effect of, “I am always skeptical of ‘new theories’ because they aren’t Theories until they are proven. They are merely hypotheses.”
With that as ONE of the guides of good science, please note “Anthropogenic Global Warming” or “Global Warming” (AGW or GW) is merely a hypothesis. This hypothesis is based upon the “Greenhouse Effect” (GE). The GE is fairly basic and simplistically: take an enclosed system and pump energy into it through one end and block the return of that energy out of the system. Basic thermodynamics demands any such system that has more energy coming in than going out will heat up. The flaw of equating the GE to AGW or GW is in the variables control arena. In a greenhouse situation (a place where plants are literally incubated at all times) the variables are relatively few and easily controlled. This is not the case with respect to AGW or GW. Plus, those who are promoting AGW or GW have changed their tune in the last couple of years and called the phenomenon “Climate Change”.
For any scientist worth their salt, this change in nomenclature should raise a serious Red Flag. Even lay people recognize this change in ‘naming convention’ as being a bit on the shady side. AGW or GW indicates the planet is warming while Climate Change (CC) is a given on a daily basis simply based on sunrise/sunset. Now we have interesting articles like this coming out: 2008 will be coolest year of the decade. The very first sentence of the second paragraph denies evidence contrary to AGW/GW/CC:
The relatively chilly temperatures compared with recent years are not evidence that global warming is slowing however, say climate scientists at the Met Office.
The very next sentence in that paragraph attempts to move the goal posts:
“Absolutely not,” said Dr Peter Stott, the manager of understanding and attributing climate change at the Met Office’s Hadley Centre. “If we are going to understand climate change we need to look at long-term trends.”
Note the phrases “…are not evidence that global warming is slowing…” (denial of directly contradictory evidence against AGW/GW … but not CC) and “…to understand climate change we need to look at long-term trends.” (goal post moving).
Herein lies (pun intended) my main issue with AGW/GW enthusiasts. Failure to recognize contradictory evidence to the hypothesis and changing the focus of the experiment without modifying the hypothesis directly conflict with the Scientific Method.
Therefore, I am a proud AGW/GW skeptic. Failure to follow the Scientific Method, using incomplete and inaccurate models, and incorrect assumptions (de-bunked Hockey-Stick Graph) have put me there. On the converse side, I firmly believe in Climate Change. That’s been proven to happen, in some cases, within minutes for a discreet location and, on the geologic scale, more times than I’ve been able to count.
Anthropogenic Global Warming/Global Warming is a FALSE hypothesis. Climate Change is real.
UPDATE:I am constantly amazed by the tactic of ‘repeat a lie often enough and it becomes truth’. From a story on LiveScience.com: Thousands Negotiate New Climate Treaty (also saw this on Yahoo yesterday)
POZNAN, Poland (AP) — Scientists studying the changing nature of the Earth’s climate say they have completed one crucial task — proving beyond a doubt that global warming is real.
Of course, there is NO PROOF included in the article…just a discussion about another “treaty” to combat Climate Change (Global Warming). Note, the above is the opening line of the article and the AP has called it “global warming”. However, just the 3rd paragraph of the article there is this:
“It is critical for us to get a much better understanding of the impact of climate change in some parts of the world,” Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, told The Associated Press in an interview Tuesday.
Notice “climate change” instead of “global warming”?
And then there’s this classic quote:
“My concern is that if we leave everything to the end, we might end up with a weak agreement that doesn’t really address the problem,” he said.
Kyoto Protocol anyone? Any takers for a bet on whether or not this ‘new treaty’ will be just about as tough on ‘developing nations’ like China as the KP? I’ll take the side that it will do even less than KP while costing ‘developed nations’ even more.
And even later here’s the lie again:
“The skeptics are doing a good job because they are making us present ironclad proof,” said Lawrence E. Buja, a climate change researcher for the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado.
But since that battle is over, he said scientists need to move on and look at the detailed impact of climate change.
…snip…
Buja, who contributed to the IPCC report…
I ask again. WHAT PROOF? There is none to be found in the entire article…unless one wants to take the UN’s IPCC Chairman’s word for it along with other contributors to their reports.
How about a bit of discussion or even (gasp) debate? Why hasn’t this been included in the reporting? Why do the majority of (and majority parties’ leaders) world leaders by and large love the UN’s IPCC ‘proof’ and ignore the dissenting view?