Pirate's Cove

What is, in fact, the Scientific Method? For those who took science in school, something I believe that they fail to teach nowadays in favor of socialization, anal sex, and self esteem classes, it is

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

How does that apply to Global Warming As Caused By Man

1. Observe that temperatures are up in some areas of the world, realize that a lot of money can be made
2. Call it Global Warming, blame mankind, solict donations to attack automotive manufacturers, drive around in brand new (insert luxury car here), buy a mansion, hang with celebrities
3. Predict the world is going to end, ask for more donations, buy a yacht
4. Use computer models and limited real world data to back your claim, ask for donations
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4, except, purchase other valuable goods (though a second yacht is always nice), tell people to shut the hell up and listen to their betters.

The problem with GWACBM, or, as it is disengenuously known, climate change (like abortion is "choice"), is that step 5 in the scientific method is never followed. In reality, the disciples of climate change stop the method after the word "observation" in step 4. They never change their hypothesis, except to make even more dire predictions.

The scientific method should be free of prejudice. If the outcomes are different then what are expected, then one changes the hypothesis. Once everything matches up, it is a Theory. A Theory can still be dispproven or changed, such as the Theory of Relativity, if it can be, and if anyone is smart enough to do it. At some point, the Theory can not be disproven, and becomes a Law. The Theory of Gravity is not a theory; it is Law.

Climate change is simply a hypothesis, with little data to truly support it and make it a Theory. Everyone knows that gravity is the real deal (unless you are an idiot.) Those who believe in climate change treat it as if it were a Law, but, they cannot substantiate it even as a theory, per step 5.

But, if you do not 100% agree with them, then shut the hell up

A report summary issued Friday by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change "should erase any doubts, even among the most dedicated skeptics, that the time for action to combat global warming is now," said National Audubon President John Flicker.

As for those who question the latest scientific consensus on global warming — ignore them, Flicker suggested: "The clarity and completeness of the IPCC's global warming findings permanently relegates skeptics to the fringe," he said.

Got that? You are wasting your time trying to have a discussion with those who believe feel deeply in climate change. They will refuse to not only have no rational, scientific, factual, adult converstations with you, they will refuse to converse at all. If climate change is such an established fact, then why can't they debate it? Because feelings are not facts.

More: Good Lt over at The Jawa Report points to an article in the National Post, which is about one of the original proponents of SUVs and Man cause global warming, Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, and his changing of his mind about the issue. Really deserves a post of its own, but the Pirate's Cove is dangerously close to become the "global warming disciples need to get a life and clue" Cove.

Blitzed to Outside the Beltway, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, stikNstein… has no mercy, basil's blog, Shadowscope, Blue Star Chronicles, Stuck On Stupid, The Pink Flamingo, Cao's Blog, Dumb Ox Daily News, Adam's Blog, Pursuing Holiness, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.