What other “scientific method” (theory) is allowed the
leeway that’s granted to “Climate Change?” From junior high school one’s taught
that you come up with a hypothesis, test it, and go where the facts/results
take you. Period. That is called “the Scientific Method.” What other scientific
area allows observable data to be chronicled, touted and then changed in
midstream when results don’t buttress the theory?
Take
the infamous hockey stick graph…please. That “old trope” is now in the process
of being proven wrong. Temperatures aren’t continually rising. And the rate of
increase of the rate of increase in the global temperature is certainly not
increasing, either. But those who originated that graph and its predictions
can’t be wrong. Therefore global warming
certainty becomes…climate change
certainty. Viola’! Yet, instead of being chastised, questioned, tossed-out or
re-evaluated, these folks and their theories just get an absolute free pass.
Remarkable.
Let’s
posit a theory here by way of example, using a hockey stick, in fact. All
hockey sticks used to have straight, flat, blades. Let’s say we were proposing
the curved blade. Radically different! We hypothesize that the curved blade
will increase goal-scoring as it will lead to faster shots and more movement of
the puck after the shot is released. We are surprised and chagrined to find
that scoring didn’t go up, and in fact may have decreased a bit, because it is
more difficult to corral and control the puck with a curved blade. Well, we
don’t want to look like fools, so…we either find the exact time range where the
results did look like they conformed
to our hypothesis (“look at this 10-game stretch or these 3 teams only”, etc.).
Or…
We just
claim that we didn’t mean that scoring would go up per se’, we just meant that
the curved sticks would change scoring
or…something!
It
could’ve been the reverse. It
doesn’t matter, if the facts don’t matter. Say our theory was scoring would go down, but it actually stayed the same
or went up. If our theory doesn’t fit the observable facts, we just claim we
knew something(s) would change and
that the altered stick blades were responsible for this/these change(s).
Yes, since everything had forever stayed the same
before we trotted out our precious theory!
No comments:
Post a Comment