Endless Climate Hysteria Insanity Edition
Here’s a vignette that captures the insanity of the climate change true believers.
My family and I were visiting the Milwaukee Art Museum at least a decade ago. We took an elevator and were joined by two employees of the museum. One was speaking to the other in the most highbrow, pompous way imaginable about the certainty that the world was going to end if we didn’t do something soon about global warming. The other employee listened in a posture of deep respect and concern.
It’s safe to say that the speaker wouldn’t know the scientific method if it hit him in the head. It’s absolutely certain that he knew zero about the intricacies and problems associated with use of computer models to predict complex, chaotic physical phenomena. But none of that prevented this man from presuming a position of intellectual and moral superiority on “climate change.” He is my personal poster-child for all the know-it-alls who repeatedly go into hysterics over serially false predictions that “climate change will end the world in X years!”
Oh, I know, “97% of all scientists agree about climate change.”* In the first place, this statement utterly contradicts the scientific method. Science is not decided by vote, but rather by evidence and successful prediction of future events (more on this later). In 1633 know-it-alls could have said “97% of all scientists believe that the earth is the center of the universe.” In the early 1900s they could have said “97% of all scientists believe the the Newtonian theory of physics is completely accurate.” Pardon me if I’m less than impressed.
Let’s now return to the issue of the predictive power of a scientific theory. Here’s how one source describes this concept.
If a theory explains available data, then it should be able to predict what currently unavailable data should look like. … These responses suggest that, at any level in the scientific hierarchy, from a hypothesis to a fully formed theory, the ability to make testable predictions is absolutely essential to science. What constitutes a prediction, and how readily testable they are may vary from field to field, but this quality appears central.
So, I’m compelled to ask: “What is the track record of predictive power for climate science?” The answer is “pathetically failed!”
And yet, so powerful is the social compulsion to belong to the in-group, so pleasurable is the experience of emotional posturing, that people cast off any semblance of critical thinking even after dozens of failed predictions over decades.
This is indeed the definition of insanity. But, hey, if it feels good it must be a valid scientific theory!©**
* Note: This claim has been shown to be based on studies that use imprecise, even deceptive methodologies. The percentage of scientists who believe in the catastrophic climate change theory is likely far lower than the 97% claimed.
** Copyright 1692, Salem Massachusetts.