Science is a method, not a set of dogmas. The scientific method is pretty simple: you suggest a hypothesis, calculate what facts in the real world must be true if the hypothesis is correct, and then check the hypothesis against reality. If the hypothesis implies false propositions of fact, it is wrong. Case closed.
Climate alarmists stand the scientific method on its head. When their theories, as expressed in climate models, conflict with reality, they conclude that something must be wrong with reality. The heat that their models hypothesize must be “hiding” deep in the oceans, or whatever. This isn’t science: it is a combination of politics and religion. A proposition that cannot be falsified by experience is not a scientific proposition.
The Science and Environmental Policy Project does a good job of explaining this fundamental point in its Climate Fears and Finance:
By far, the most rigorous, comprehensive data on global temperatures come from satellite measurements of the atmosphere (mid-troposphere), which is where the greenhouse effect takes place. The measurements started in December 1978 and the temperature estimates are calculated by two independent groups, who closely agree. These data are independently supported by four sets of direct temperature measurements from weather balloons. …
We can see below the direct comparison between 102 model runs and observations.
The models on which climate alarmists rely are simply wrong. Their predictions are false; they have been disproved by experience. By any normal scientific standard, global warming alarmism should be consigned to the rubbish heap.
In view of this fact, why are liberals still yammering about their failed global warming theory? That has to do with the “Finance” part of SEPP’s analysis. Follow the money. More on this tomorrow.