It's Time To Treat AGW As A Theory

One thing far too many people have overlooked in regards to anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is the actual theory (or theories) about it, the data gathered, computer models, and how ongoing observations agree or disagree with the theory.

As a theory, AGW is starting to look pretty ragged, with more holes being poked into its fabric as time goes on. It is not standing up to scrutiny by third parties and predictions made by the theorists have not even come close to matching reality. But do these things stop the so-called alarmists from claiming AGW has been proven beyond all doubt? No, not in the least.

Far too many of the AGW faithful refuse to see the theory is seriously flawed. Instead they try to explain away the failure of the climate models, or point to the data that agrees with the theory while ignoring or trying to discredit all the data that disagrees with it by claiming it's faulty, tampered with, anecdotal, or trivial. Others try to put a spin on the 'anomalies'. One example: claiming the present cooling trend is proof of global warming. They also try to explain away any contradictory evidence by claiming that any weather trend that deviates from the theory can only be explained by AGW. It's the climatological version of “Heads I win, tails you lose.”

The argument that the science of global warming is settled is wishful thinking at best. No 'theory' is ever settled. A perfect example is Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. The original version was found to have serious flaws, but not until decades after Einstein presented it. Experimentation since then has proven major parts of the theory as valid and disproved others. The disproven portions of General Relativity have been revised until they matched with the observed phenomenon. That is how science is supposed to work. But AGW supporters have chosen to ignore the failure of the theory to match with observations made since the theory was first postulated. They keep claiming there is a concensus among all scientists that AGW is a fact. But others disagree.

To quote my favorite passage from Michael Crichton: “The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics… In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.” Or as my co-author Allen Simmons puts it “you don't get a bunch of scientists together and take a vote on the speed of light.” Science is not about opinions, not about polls, and certainly not about what is currently considered politically correct. In short, consensus science is bunk.

Recapping, five out of five predictions made by global warming alarmists, based on the theory of anthropogenic global warming, have been shown to be inaccurate or out right false.

Under normal circumstances a failure of the predictions to match observed conditions would mean the theory is incorrect and needs revision. Unfortunately the theory is unlikely to be modified to match observations. Instead observations or data will be 'corrected' or vaguely defined proxies will be substituted in to make the theory appear valid. Then the AGW faithful will continue on their crusade to force us into taking actions that aren't necessary, horribly expensive, and ineffective.