Paths To Knowledge (dot Science)

What is actually real in Objective Reality? How do you know? Now, prove it's real!

Those Alleging The Anthropogenic Global Warming Hypothesis Need To Either Show Conclusive Proof of Causality Or Shut Up

Posted by pwl on February 18, 2010

The AAGWCCH Challenge:

Those that are proponents of the alleged AGW hypothesis need to either to put up and show hard conclusive evidence that humans are causing global warming climate change, or shut up if they can’t.

The best anyone has been able to do is to produce nothing but the hot air of a weak statistical correlation that can’t even withstand basic scrutiny.

Those making the claims must show the evidence. Those making extraordinary claims – as those alleging the AGW hypothesis are – must show extraordinary evidence. So far not even ordinary evidence. That is a failure by the proponents to put up.

So put up or shut up.

Now to David Brin’s silly political claim that isn’t supportable.

“They see 100% of scientists as corrupt… while the oilcos are all sweet reason innocents.” – David Brin [1]

David Brin, that is utter nonsense. David, you’ve got some weird conspiracy nutter chatter going on upstairs if you actually believe that. Where the heck do you David get the idea that people “see 100% of scientists as corrupt”?

David set aside your whacked in the head beliefs that allow you to create generalized falsisms like that and embrace actual science rather than slosh political dialog.

I don’t deny anything that is actually real. I do deny made up crap because, well, it’s made up or doesn’t reflect the objective reality of Nature.

Prove to me the alleged AGW hypothesis is real in the actual objective reality of Nature were we exist and there can be no way that I’d deny it once I’m convinced. In the process I will certainly challenge any proof or evidence, that is the scientific method after all. If it doesn’t stand up to challenges then the alleged AGW hypothesis should fall (as it looks like it has).

If you are simply regurgitating what is perceived to be real or what is “agreed” (aka “consensus”) to be real then I’ll challenge it, and if I have strong evidence to the contrary I will deny it based upon that strong counter evidence. That is the scientific method.

Oil companies do a service but that doesn’t make them the best people on the planet. It can be reasonably argued that oil companies very likely embrace the alleged AGW hypothesis to take cover under the crazy political notion of being “carbon neutral” allowing their REAL pollution to go unnoticed as the false specter of CO2 fears capture and contain peoples attention. For example, Maurice Strong, billionaire oil man, was one of the key players over the past four decades or so setting that all up at the UN and pushing for carbon trading.

I certainly don’t see 100% of scientists as corrupt, however it’s very clear that Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Briffa, Hansen and many of their colleagues were and are corrupt or at least seriously lacking in integrity. This core group of over forty key climate scientists, and possibly over a hundred of them, have been at the nexus of climate science for a number of decades giving them the time and opportunity to shape the research agenda with their extreme political agenda. The “six degrees of corrupt scientists” network of papers and research linked in concept applies. All works and papers based upon this core groups papers either directly or indirectly are now suspect and must be re-peer reviewed and fully audited in the open with all data and program source code openly available. None of the work done can be trusted as a result of the core crimes of this core group. The entire network of associations these scientists have has been compromised and if climate science is to ever regain integrity all the work must be vetted again.

As I wrote in an article yesterday, it’s also clear that scientists can take on a “mind set” of “beliefs” or “ideas” such as the alleged AGW hypothesis and go beyond just hypothesizing they are true but to go past that point and prematurely conclude that their hypothesis is true and then block out all other ideas. That is the power of the “meme” to take control of a group and lead them down the path to being lemmings blind to what is really going on. Group Think Lock In is a well known phenomenon that can happen to a profession and to scientists as well. Mix in funding and, well, it’s much easier to see how a science can get corrupted.

Regardless of the crimes of the core group of climate science criminals, all the work of climate science related to the alleged AGW hypothesis must be openly and publicly audited BECAUSE of the wild and crazy claims being made that man is bringing doom and destruction to the environment. These claims are so extraordinary that the Carl Sagan principle applies: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Climate Science can’t make extraordinary claims without showing extraordinary evidence, well not if they expect to be taken seriously that is. So far zero evidence proving causation that man has caused global warming has stood up to any tests. All we see are flawed and vauge statistical correlations that can’t even hold muster after being checked.

So proponents of the alleged AGW hypothesis need to either put up or shut up. Show the evidence that you think proves causation or stop yelling fire on a crowded planet so we can get on with dealing with important issues such as real pollution problems (e.g. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch).


[1] – David Brin’s flawed perspective.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: