Who’s Anti-Science?

One of the contemporary Left’s more annoying traits is its insistence on labeling those who disagree with leftist dogma as “anti-science.” This from the people who apparently don’t know about X and Y chromosomes. Or maybe they think an X can “identify” as a Y, and vice versa.

Climate hysteria is, of course, the arena where “anti-science” accusations are thrown around most promiscuously. At the same time, advocates of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming consistently refuse to debate CAGW skeptics, which gives you a pretty good idea whose side the science is on.

The current edition of the Science and Environmental Policy Project’s The Week That Was includes these observations on science and “anti-science.”

Today, as in the past, many entities, factions, spirit of party, have made claims that science favors their programs and policies. This was common in the 1920s with Eugenics, or before that with Karl Marx and his followers claiming his economic system was “scientific socialism.” In the US some government entities, scientific organizations and political groups are claiming the Trump administration is anti-science. As a headline in the New York Times stated: “Trump Administration Hardens Its Attack on Climate Science.”

Writing for the Global Warming Policy Forum, Andrew Montford, author of “The Hockey stick Illusion” demolishes claims of Trump’s attack on science.
The models fail to describe what has been occurring in the atmosphere over the past 40 years.
Montford also brings up the paper by Judith Curry “Climate Models for the Layman” published in 2017 by the Global Warming Policy Foundation. … Curry summarizes the global climate models (GCMs) by stating:

Global Climate Models are important tools for understanding the climate system. However, there are broad concerns about their reliability:

• GCM predictions of the impact of increasing carbon dioxide on climate cannot be rigorously evaluated on timescales of the order of a century.

• There has been insufficient exploration of GCM uncertainties.

• There are an extremely large number of unconstrained choices in terms of selecting model parameters and parameterisations.

• There has been a lack of formal model verification and validation, which is the norm for engineering and regulatory science.

• GCMs are evaluated against the same observations used for model tuning.

• There are concerns about a fundamental lack of predictability in a complex nonlinear system.

The IPCC First Assessment Report (AR) was published in 1990. In over 25 years they have not bothered to verify and validate their models. It is not a scientific organization, but a political faction attempting to extract money from the American public and the EU. [Also, verification and validation are a major problem with US EPA models.]

It may be unfortunate that it takes a real estate promoter with an abrasive public personality to point out that what passes for science from the IPCC is really an illusion, “smoke and mirrors.” But Trump seems to be the first leader of a major nation who willingly rejected the IPCC’s false claim of scientific credibility.

Liberals often talk about “science” as though it were a set of approved dogmas. In fact, science is a method. “Climate scientists” seem almost allergic to applying the scientific method to their claims about Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. Here, as on so many other issues, it is President Trump who is right, and his ostensibly sophisticated critics who are wrong.

Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.