Richard Courtneys Comment
From HERE at post # 298,in reply to Spencer Tracy's replies in the thread:
Quote:Spencer Tracy:
I write in an attempt to escape from the loop of irrational assertions with which you are responding to all evidence and logical argument. I warn that what I am about to write will be very difficult for you and all other adherents to the cult of AGW to comprehend. But if you can grasp it then you will understand why several here regard members of your cult with even more contempt than you have stated about me.
I – and others here – adhere to the scientific method. That method is about disproving things. All ideas are subjected to testing against observations of the real world. We call these observations empirical data. And we assess all empirical data for its accuracy, precision and reliability because we trust nothing. When empirical data disagrees with an idea then the idea is amended or – failing that – it is replaced by another idea.
For us, an idea is ‘true’ in so far as it is supported by observation of the real world but it ceases to be ‘true’ when a new observation refutes it. And we keep looking for that new observation because we find a better ‘truth’ when an old ‘truth’ has been found to be false. In our jargon, we try to falsify everything. Indeed, anything that cannot be falsified is not ‘true’ according to the scientific method.
So, many things are not capable of investigation by use of the scientific method. For example, belief in the existence – or otherwise – of God is not ‘true’ according to the scientific method because that existence or nonexistence – is not capable of falsification. Of course, that does not mean scientists cannot believe in the existence of God: I believe in His existence and most of the greatest scientists (e.g. Newton, Mendel, Faraday, etc.) have held such belief. But it does mean that this is one of the many subjects which cannot be investigated by use of the scientific method
So, we try to prove nothing. And we try to disprove everything. Our activity is called the scientific method.
And, as I said, our activity is not capable of investigating everything but its adoption at the time of the Enlightenment has resulted in the world of technological wonders in which we live. Those wonders include medical treatments that work, food to supply billions, goods and services in abundance, leisure and luxuries that nobody had in previous ages, methods of transportation that enable food, goods and services to be provided where they are needed, and the reduction of pollution in which people live to levels that were unimaginably low at the time of the Enlightenment.
Given those rewards from adherence to the scientific method, we choose to use, support and defend that method.
Hence, we value the scientific method. I recognise that you have great difficulty understanding why anybody would value and defend the scientific method, but we do. And, of course, that puts us in opposition to the cult of AGW which practices the antithesis of the scientific method; viz. pseudoscience.
Pseudoscience is about proving things. It exists to support a belief and has many forms depending on the belief being supported. The cult of AGW is one of these forms. Other examples are astrology and palmistry. All such examples pretend that they are a form of science, and some have gained acceptance – albeit temporary – as being sciences with studies conducted in academia and research papers published in scientific journals. Pseudosciences that have obtained temporary acceptance as being science include eugenics, Lysenkoism and phrenology.
The cult of AGW is very, very similar to that of eugenics a century ago.
But, like eugenics, AGW is pure pseudoscience. And this was clearly demonstrated by one of AGW’s leading priests, Phil Jones, who – when asked to provide his source data – said;
“Why should I let you have the data when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?”
Of course, the assertion in Jones’ reply is correct because the activity of scientists is to “try to find something wrong” with anything they investigate.
But a pseudoscience exists to promote an idea and not to falsify it. The cult of AGW exists to promote the idea of AGW. The undeniable fact that all – yes, ALL – available empirical data refutes AGW is of no interest to the cult. The empirical data falsifies AGW but falsification is only important to scientists and is irrelewvant to pseudoscientists.
Indeed, the AGW cultists do not say any evidence that supports AGW because there is none. Instead, they do all the things you have done here.
They assert the fact of the radiative physics which gives rise to the idea of AGW as though that fact were evidence for the ‘truth’ of the idea. Of course, this assertion is nonsense. Nobody disputes that physics but there is much empirical evidence that it cannot give rise to AGW (e.g. AGW is observed to be counteracted by the hydrological cycle).
They slander, demean, and libel the infidels who dare to question their true faith in AGW because practitioners of a pseudoscience adhere to promotion of their belief so they feel compelled to destroy those who would question it.
They cite something (e.g. the UAH time series) is ‘evidence’ when it can be used to support an assertion pro-AGW but claim that same information cannot be accepted (e.g. because it is “too noisy”) when it refutes an assertion of AGW.
They spread falsehoods while saying things like “To be quite honest” and – in their terms – they are being honest because anything which promotes their belief is ‘true’ whether or not it accords with reality.
They pretend that something (e.g. IPCC AR4) is undeniably right so cannot be challenged but deny that it says what it does when it does not support their view.
They define things at will (e.g. peer review makes a publication right) and redefine them at will (e.g. only certain peer reviewed publications are right) depending on whether those things support their belief.
So,Spencer Tracy, in conclusion, I can see no possibility of anything sound coming from my attempting discussion with you. I am constrained by my adherence to the scientific method and you have come here to promote the beliefs of your cult. I can no more disprove your superstitious belief than I can disprove a religious belief in the existence of God.
But I can provide – and I have provided – the empirical data that shows AGW is not happening. And I can provide – and I have provided – the empirical data that shows AGW cannot happen to a discernible degree.
Nice comment showing what pseudoscience can look like.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.
–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
|
Richard Courtneys Comment
