avatar

The scientist Wolfgang Pauli was known for his often less than polite criticism of the work of some of his colleagues. He would sometimes exclaim "wrong" or "completely wrong" when he disagreed with someone. He even sadly said, "It is not even wrong". The phrase "not even wrong" carries two different connotations. A theory can be "not even wrong" because it is so incomplete and ill-defined that it can't be used to make firm predictions whose failure would show it to be wrong. This has been the situation of man made global warming/climate change theory from its beginnings to the present day. Most new theoretical ideas begin in this state; it can take quite a bit of work before their implications are understood as to whether the idea is right or wrong. There is, however, something worse than a wrong idea. In the case of the man made global warming/climate change theory, some researchers are abandoning fundamental scientific principals rather that admit a theory is wrong. Worse than being wrong is to refuse to admit it when one is wrong, or, as he phrased it: "Ganz Falsch”, i.e.: it is not even wrong, it is “completely false". Not one of the computer models being used to predict the future of earth's climate changes have ever been able to predict the climate changes from the past to the present, even though they were fed every last bit of scientific fact as based on the hard evidence of what has actually happened to our climate to date. That Al Gore (and his sycophants) intentionally use the term "denier" to imply that anyone who dares to disagree with them and their colleagues in the political sphere, or their coconspirators in the United Nations, is akin to the anti holocaust ranting's of those who hate Jews. He and they also cleverly use the term "outlier", which in the scientific community defines something in their findings that is at odds with the theory being tested, but is considered to be inconsequential to the final outcome (or "Solution"), to imply that the scientist's, and any one else who disagrees with them, are not to be believed or listened to. "Scientific Method"? What Scientific Method does not allow for questioning and rigorous rebuttal of any and every theory - however "Established" and "Settled" it may appear to be? (I remind you of Einsteins Theory of Relativity having just been disproved/reproved. I.e.: "Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light" - However, "Something" just did/did not.) Why does the phrase "Socialism" come to mind? It's because in order to " ... act before all the evidence is in, just in case it's correct" requires an ungodly blend of Fascistic Socialism and Religious Fervor (a.k.a., "Environmentalism") to be imposed on everyone. Carbon Credits; Cap and Trade; Mercury filled light bulbs; Toilet Capacity; Bovine Flatulence (a fitting term for the methods the "bull in the china shop" green regulators in charge envision implementing), and there are so many more to mention it would take a infinite compendium to index the injustices to be done in the name of "Saving the Planet", "Before it's too late!" (or we really know what we're doing). Study the evidence with an open mind, not one filled with the preconceived notion that the only "pure" scientists are the ones who do research on the governments dole. (Where do you think most university research grants come from? How about evaluating possible peer pressure and “greener goals”, coupled with the drying up of funds for unpopular or unprofitable research? Don’t forget, tenure is, after all, basically a popularity contest.) If you believe that we can learn from the past, remember the recanting of his heliocentric theory, on the pain of death to be enforced by the powers that be, by Galileo.