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!