Einstein’s rigour and integrity inspired Karl Popper to form his influential theories on falsification: that a scientific theory is only useful if it contains the key to its own destruction. This, critics argue, is the fundamental flaw with anthropogenic global warming theory: it has been couched in such a way as to be unfalsifiable; it is being kept alive not by science and free enquiry, but by the kind of appeals to authority we see exemplified by Mann’s response to Steyn’s criticisms.
It cannot be overstated how anti-science the “science” behind global warming is: I would say that it’s the creationism of the Left, but it’s less falsifiable than is creationism. Moreover, the former R&D engineer in me cannot help but add another criteria to actual science: it pass the laugh test.
Back in the day, I made nanomaterial samples that were approximately the size of your thumb. We quickly figured out that there were a number of variables that we hadn’t even considered and spent several years working out the kinks. Now these “climate change scientists” (I’m snickering just saying that) are telling us that they have so accurately quantified every single variable that affects climate on Earth – Earth, which is 25,000 miles around the Equator, so that if you started driving on it today at 60 mph you wouldn’t be back to your starting point for almost a month – that they can determine the exact temperature change which will result from a small increase in CO2 emissions? Getting back to the nanomaterials, I don’t think that “climate scientists” even understand a lot of the variables that go into climate, let alone are able to quantify them to such a perfect extent.
Give me a [expletive] break. That’s comical. And it’s the type of thing that you could only believe if you’ve never done any actual science in your entire life. Hello, signal-to-noise ratio.