The Default Position of Science is Skepticism

0 217

You know where we’re going. Yes. We’re going there. GloBull Warming. But let’s take the journey.

What is science? And for Pete’s sake, what is Settled Science? The term gets thrown around by some people who clearly have no grasp of it. Actually, the answer is not hard. If you were born before 1975, this was covered in junior high. For those of you younger than that, well…you may have to work at this a little. Thinking is difficult the first time it’s tried.
Science the methodology
Science begins with the understanding that your proposition is not true. You have to provide evidence to support your point, and your point has to survive testing by those trying to debunk it. Science is at its heart the pursuit of truth. The foundation of science is the Scientific Method, which guides you in discovery and proof:

  • Observe: something in the real world.
  • Ask the question: what is happening, or why does it happen that way?
  • Form a hypothesis: a tentative explanation that answers the question.
  • Test it: design and execute experiments that support or disprove your hypothesis.
  • Rinse and repeat as needed: do the test results support your hypothesis?

If your experiments disprove your hypothesis, then it’s wrong. Try again. If experiments are inconclusive, then you probably can improve your question, your answer, or your test. If experiments show that you may be on to something but your explanation is not quite there, then you adjust your hypothesis and start at the top again. If your tests support your hypothesis, then maybe, just MAYBE, you’ve got something. Now it’s time to test it from every side, try to disprove your hypothesis (because skeptics will certainly try). Eventually present all your findings to others, so they can repeat the tests, think of the whole problem from a variety of angles, and add their own sets of tests . If you’ve been sloppy with your own testing, you’ll look like an amateur in front of your peers.

ScientificMethodA few notes have to be made about the testing phase. Experiments can be lab tests, they can be observation of lots and lots of empirical data either in the lab or out in the wild. The more well-constructed test, the more you can eliminate external forces on your data, then the more your results serve to prove or disprove your hypothesis.

Comprehensive propositions that attempt to account for a multitude of factors and arrive at a meaningful conclusion are going to be much more difficult to prove than any others. With numerous moving parts, it may not be possible to isolate causes and effects.The more factors you have, the more careful you must be in testing, and in analyzing test results. What results are important? What is just background noise? How much are your interpretations colored by what you hope to find?

An real scientist would be very loathe to make sweeping conclusions about any grand-scale proposition. This simple and unimpeachable statement is how I know – I know for a fact – that the stupid “97% of scientists agree” statement is a huge big honking lie.

Science the body of knowledge
The term Science also refers to the total body of knowledge of all those who came before us. In school we do lab experiments to see for ourselves what science has long known. We do Mendel’s fruit fly experiments not because we expect to discover something new, but to see, touch, and smell truth for ourselves.

Settled Science
Now here is a term, when used by actual scientists, that is weighty. When you drop a hammer, it falls down. Every time. Except in space. But then even that is settled science, because the physics of gravity is a bit more complicated than Newton understood – the hammer will still obey the laws in predictable ways. Heat conductance, electrical current, the behavior of fluids going through pipes, all settled science.

Many scientists for years have tested every facet of these facts. Tests have been repeated ad nauseum, under many conditions. They’ve built on basic facts and layered facts upon facts upon facts on top of them. Settled scientific facts can support the weight of many facts on top of them.

Here’s what settled science looks like in the real world. When you come home and flip the light switch on, and the light does not come on, what do you think? Do you consider the possibility that electrical theory is wrong? Or that its mostly right but seems to need a little tweak? No, you do not. You assume, quite correctly, that something in the chain of current is broken: a bulb is out, or a fuse is blown, or the house electricity is out, or the whole grid is down. THAT is what settle science looks like.

When the Science is not actually settled
Let’s take this Global Warming nonsense as an excellent case in point. It is refuted by simply looking at what they predicted, and comparing their predictions with what has happened. In the 90’s these people (who I will not call scientists) predicted that long before 2014, the polar ice caps would melt – completely, that global air temperatures would raise an average of 5-10 degrees Fahrenheit, that low-lying coasts would begin to flood.

The sad thing is not just that none of those extreme events have happened. The truth is much more brutal. The earth, in 15 years, has not warmed one iota. All by itself, Global Warming is undone. Nor is the weather becoming more extreme (the “new, improved Global Warming). None of it is true. None.

Remember “you might be a redneck if…” jokes by Jeff Foxworthy? Let’s play the “it might be junk science if…” game.

  • the research is funded by those with a political agenda favoring a particular outcome.
  • calamity is predicted which can only be averted by government intervention that leads to more control over your life.
  • the predictions don’t come true, don’t even remotely come close to being true. Yeah, I know it’s obvious, but apparently about 40% of Americans are fuzzy on this point.
  • experiments are not repeatable.
  • evidence is selectively chosen by discarding evidence contradictory to your desired results.
  • evidence is simply made up.
  • you are reduced to relying on a hockey-stick graph. Which is junk science’s way of saying “there’s no trend to support my claim, but by golly, it’s ABOUT to happen!
  • scientists who do not support the hypothesis are ostracized, defunded, and slandered.
  • claims that “97% of scientists agree” are simply made up.
  • when the real world reveals the hypothesis to be untrue, then new versions come out with new names Global Warming Climate Change Climate Disruption (I’ve kind of lost track of what the latest term is), but (as if by magic) the same political big-government solution is required.
  • skeptics are attacked actively. True science, and true scientists, welcome skepticism. It keeps them sharp.
  • the shrieking gets louder when the public starts to get wise to the game.

barney_fife_ya_see_andy_01So as you were reading about hypotheses, testing, repeatability, and evidence, I want you to think about these when the Warmists call you a Climate Denier. Everything I explained above was covered in regular public school before I was in high school. It is Science 101, the very basics.

Warmists work very hard to make you forget the basics. It’s not your job to believe these uneducated dolts because they scream Settled Science and point to UN-sponsored and largely unsupported clap-trap. It’s their job to make their case, based on the evidence. Warmists almost by definition don’t have a grasp of Science 101. They actually think they are the smart and enlightened ones. Based on….predictive models that so far have predicted squat. I mean, how can a grown man of IQ over 80 say such a thing as this?

And just between us, let’s be honest: the average member of the public is a bit (how can I put it politely?) of a moron. It’s all well and good for the science to tell us global warming is more dangerous than Nazism, but Joe Q. Flyover doesn’t understand science. He wants evidence.

So the stupid hillbilly Climate Denier doesn’t understand science because wants EVIDENCE? How desperately stupid this author is, to say such a thing.

Now, after reading this, you have no excuse. You should re-examine the claims of Warmists, and look to see what their evidence is. It’s not there. If you believe in global warming, you are an idiot.

You might also like

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.