long time has been hearing the argument of a "scientific consensus" climate change and global warming. This is nothing more than "groupthink" or more simply: the herd instinct. Interestingly, the herd is always candidly ram which leads to the slaughter ...
The herd instinct is a tendency of human nature, which in itself is a severe disadvantage in science. Instead of fighting it as best we can, we have invented a method to help advance science - a review of studies pairs, or "peer review" - which in real life makes it virtually impossible to separate from the flock, continue to support, can continue publication, or remain all the advantages required to work in any scientific field.
If any subject had to start a diversity of views, the system of peer review will ensure a very short life for that situation, and soon the field will be closed and will access only on those who are in the middle. Dissidents in the periphery are considered wolves attacking sheep. They are heretics.
Once the flock has been established, regardless of the historical evolution that has led to it, it gets so tight control is extremely difficult to do something about it. And even if it is found this is the situation, do not know how to interfere. Where is then the right to free speech if the scientific literature have to send each item to a lot of people and the bulk of these people are in the flock? Usually, with only a third of the reviews that are negative study does not get published. And the views of the heretics are thrown away because they "are not published in scientific journals with peer review. It is the fallacy of "circular reasoning", more popularly known as Catch-22, or The Catch-22, in memory of the great Alan Arkin movie where you could not ask withdrawal from the front line reason of insanity, because anyone wishing to withdraw from the front is very sane! Petition denied.
So there is no freedom of expression in the sense that you can not publish a diversity of views. Nor is freedom of speech in the conference because the same applies here. Can those who have a divergent view of the herd organize your own conferences? Very rarely. Essentially once the herd has been formed, will interfere with all activities necessary to advance science.
Does he want the rector of a university to promote a chair someone who is out of the flock? It can not, because you have to send letters to key people in that field, you should ask at least 20 people before getting permission to name someone in a chair, and how do you get the permission when the herd is moving in a direction different from this person? No chance. Chant says the situation is worsening every day and more.
Once the flock has been established in relation to any matter, can only be destroyed by confrontation with the evidence more overwhelming. There was in the history of science no other polite way to do it, once that the flock was formed, there was no other way to disarm him. Alfred Wegener was out of the flock for his theory of continental drift and plate tectonics for over 30 years. Only after his disappearance in the Greenland ice sheet recognized the validity of his theory. Evidence crashed into the herd of geologists and pulverized.
Science or Pseudoscience?
A heated debate on the question whether "global warming" is pseudoscience or not, depending on the definition of "pseudoscience" and the definition of "science." For On the other hand: Is global warming a science? Definitely not. Global warming is a climate event and not a science. Is studied by a large set of different scientific disciplines, among which are meteorology, physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, astronomy, and various specialties such as oceanography. Meteorology studies the phenomena of weather and climate at small scales in time, hours or days, whereas what we call climate studies the large time scales longer regions of years, decades, centuries, millennia. But there is no climate science. is an epistemological question.
may be an analogy between climate and a puzzle: Everyone claims to have a piece of the puzzle, but the problem is that we lack the lid of the box. We do not know if the full image will be a Veleritos at sea or a Sioux chief. To make matters worse, do not even have the four corners of the picture: the atmosphere, oceans, the sun and the lithosphere (including the biosphere). While there are serious scientists scratch their heads wondering how a piece fits with the others, is eager owners of the puzzle that, if a piece does not fit with another, get it by applying a good hammer, or the indiscriminate use saw, rasp and sandpaper.
latter are the "shapers" really bright programmers and very expensive video game computers. If any of your assumptions seems to fit with reality, then it is best to change the reality adjusting the values \u200b\u200bof variables and constants that represent it to fit his premise. In the jargon of modelers call "best fit" or "best fit." And the result is presented as "evidence" that the evidence used to test theories, and theories and tested "to Al Gore, are used to promulgate regulations that policies inevitably become in higher taxes and more government power. All for the sake of saving a catastrophe ever imagined and unsubstantiated.
sciences make use of hypotheses and theories, things to be validated, that is, moving all the acid tests of observation, evidence, and logic. In our subject, there are observations (warming), there is an idea or hypothesis (the greenhouse effect), there are certain tests of these hypotheses (paleoclimate studies, reconstructions of temperature and CO2 levels, the hockey stick, etc.), and where things seem to go wrong.
tests fail in their assumptions intento de probarlas, sin embargo parece que un tácito y silencioso “acuerdo entre caballeros” –algo sine qua non entre miembros del rebaño- requiere que la hipótesis sea salvada a toda costa. No importa el precio. Hay demasiados intereses económicos, geopolíticos, personales, fama y puestos de trabajo que hay que cuidar. Las acciones que parecen ser “pseudo-ciencia” son los métodos científicos usados para sustentar a la explicación y atribución de culpabilidad de la observación: calentamiento. Los métodos científicos tradicionales han sido, por supuesto, absolutamente violados o ignorados.
Entonces, para saber si lo que está manejando the scene of global warming and climate change, he is doing in a scientific and accurate, we must know what is pseudoscience . Query Wikipedia site gives a list of the characteristics of pseudoscience, showing astrology as a case study. And it gives us also the view of Mario Bunge Argentine epistemologist about what is "pseudoscience"
| "A pseudoscience is a lot of clubs that is sold as science. Examples: alchemy, astrology, characterology, scientific communism, scientific creationism, graphology, ufology, parapsychology and psychoanalysis. " |
And a little further down they say,
| In general, the scientific method requires that theories can be subjected to rigorous empirical tests, while pseudoscience, or is not possible to implement systems for rebuttal (because it is ambiguous formulations) or protect his theory (for example, or ad hoc auxiliary hypotheses, made a posteriori), rather than submit to tests that could disprove it. |
Scientific Methodology
Now we have to explain what the scientific method to what extent will tell us whether climate change falls into the "pseudo-scientific methods" or not.
| "set of steps determined in advance by a discipline to achieve valid knowledge through reliable instruments," "standard sequence to ask and answer to a question", "pattern that allows researchers get from point A to point Z with the confidence to obtain valid knowledge. "So the method is a set of steps trying to protect ourselves from the subjectivity of knowledge. |
not go to list the large number of scientific methods that exist because it would be to end tomorrow. Interested in knowing more, I have well explained in the Scientific Method of Wikipedia.
"Empirical Evidence?
The main-and almost the only pillar that sustains the hypothesis of anthropogenic warming are the results (called "projections" or "scenarios") of climate models called "General Circulation Models, which are presented by the IPCC and the media as" evidence "of anthropogenic climate change. There is no such thing. The results of the computer models are just evidence of clever programming that tends to "prove" a pre-established premise.
models say that global warming is directly responsible for the CO2 and its increase since the Industrial Revolution began around 1750. What tests have to prove that statement? Graphs showing a correlation between levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and the rise of temperature. But this correlation causality test is it? Is it evidence that the increased CO2 produces a significant increase in temperature? No, it is . Our understanding of global warming has gone through three stages:
- 1985 to 2000: Information from Antarctic ice cores led us to suspect that the CO2 caused the warming.
- 2000 to 2007: The new studies, from the work of Jaworowski and Monnin in 2000, Ernst Beck in 2006, showed that neither pre-industrial CO2 levels eran de 270 ppm, ni que el aumento del CO2 causa el aumento de la temperatura. Sorprendentemente, lo contrario es la verdad. En la historia climática de la tierra, ha sido siempre el aumento de la temperatura quien ha inducido un posterior aumento del CO2 atmosférico.
- Desde agosto 2007: Sabemos con seguridad que el CO2 no es la causa del calentamiento global. El CO2 no es más un sospechoso en el crimen del cambio climático, sino que las sospechas se hacen cada vez más fuertes sobre otro sospechoso: las variaciones de la actividad del Sol.
Los únicos datos sobre temperatura en que podemos confiar son los obtenidos por los satélites, y ellos begin only in 1978. Why are not reliable data from ground stations? Because it has been proven in a very recent research (still ongoing), which most weather stations in the U.S. national network failures occur almost outrageous in the placement of measuring instruments, 85% nearby heat sources that produce falsely high readings.
Then, to prove our point just enough to see the total lack of correlation between the gradual and steady growth of CO2 and temperature variations between December 1978 and November 2007:
1: temperature (green line) and CO2 levels (upper gray line) |
see that since 1998 the overall temperature while begun to decline that CO 2 increasing steadily continued and gradually. Then, on what scientific basis supporting the IPCC reports, its alarmist allegations and urgency to the Kyoto Treaty is expanded to limits that will mean the collapse of many national economies -Especially the developing countries. Then we must make the salary of the IPCC scientists and other propulsion of this fantastic theory, a series of questions related to the science and the scientific methodology used. Among many others come to mind:
- Can they explain more clearly what is causing the climate science in a scientific manner?
- Are they doing the measurements meeting the Nyquist sampling theorem?
- Are measuring correctly CO2 fluxes, and not simply mean multiplying instead of taking integrals of functions that fluctuate quickly?
- Are they considering coupled complex systems such as oceans and the atmosphere is very unlikely to have a fixed point of balance?
- Are they trying to reproduce experimentally the process of occlusion of air bubbles trapped in the snow gradually compressed to prove that the composition of air remains the same after decompression?
- Are you doing something real science should (or could) do?
No answers to these questions. So far it has been found that none of this is being done, and that greater emphasis on "authority" of guilt based on false correlations, which in real investigation to discover the mechanism that actually govern the weather.
Discussions in the field of climate change should be within the context of essential or nonessential criteria. For example, the observed resistance to test new theories, and the emphasis on the above observations confirm the test for, as stated above, attributing blame innocent people and divert attention to other possible perpetrators of past warming or cooling current, as seems to be variations in solar activity.
The issue of falsifiability of hypotheses and theories is crucial in climate change and global warming. But what is the falsifiability of theories? Wikepedia comes to our aid again:
| The falsificationism refutationism or principle of falsifiability is a current epistemological founded by Karl Popper. For Popper contrast means trying to refute a theory by a counterexample. If you can not disprove, the theory is borne out, may be accepted provisionally, but never verified. |
All this long introduction is to determine whether the theory or hypothesis of climate change caused by man has a scientific or, if it can be "falsified" theory has to go back to the drawing board and be reformed until it can not be falsified or disproved or disproved, or proved false. This demonstration has been made but, of course, the IPCC and its 2500 scientists who do not pass 400, remain ignorant, or pretend you have not heard anything about it. Now, then:
From Wikipedia definitions (English version) copied below, we see one or more cases where the criterion applies to the theory Warming Global anthropic, ie caused by human activities.
What follows is what is proposed as indicators that there is a poor scientific reasoning, but not converted to the science involved in pseudo-science:
- Using vague statements, exaggerated, or lack of evidence.
- Making statements about scientific matters that are vague rather than precise, and the absence of specific measurements.
- lack of effective control in the design of experiments.
- Overconfidence on confirmation rather than refutation.
- Making scientific claims that can not be "falsified" in the event of being incorrect, inaccurate, or irrelevant (see also falsifiability).
- Asserting that the claims have not been proven false must be true, and vice versa (see: Arguing from ignorance)
- Over-reliance on testimonials and anecdotes. The testimonials and anecdotal evidence can be useful for discovery (eg.: Hypothesis generation) but should not be used in the context of justification (eg.: hypothesis testing)
- Selective use of experimental evidence: presentation of data seem to support their own claims while suppressing or refusing to consider information that conflicts with their assumptions.
- Reversal of burden of proof. In science, the burden of proof rests on those who make a statement, not a critic. The arguments "pseudo" can ignore this principle and demand that skeptics are proved, beyond a reasonable doubt that a claim (eg.: A claim regarding with a new therapeutic technique) is false. It is essentially impossible to prove a negative universe, so this tactic incorrectly places the burden of proof on the skeptic rather than on who makes the claim.
- Lack of openness to testing theories by other experts.
- Evasion of peer review before publishing results (called "science by press release),
- The scientific community expects authors to share information needed to assess a study. Failure to provide adequate information other researchers to reproduce the results claimed is a lack of openness. (This is the case of the famous hockey stick of Michael Mann, quine to date has not provided their data for review).
- Make appeals to professional secrecy or copyright in response to requests for review of the information or methodology.
- Lack of self correction: scientific research programs make mistakes, but they tend to eliminate these errors over time. In contrast, theories are accused of being pseudoscientific because they have remained unchanged despite all contradictory evidence.
Strong - social groups and organizations, authoritarian personality, suppression of dissent, and groupthink can enhance the adoption of beliefs that have no rational basis. In an attempt to confirm their beliefs, the group tends to identify their critics as enemies.
- Claims of a conspiracy by the scientific community to suppress results.
- Attacking the motives or character of anyone who questions the claims of the theory (see the fallacy Ad Hominem)
and reviewing the history of global warming and global climate change caused by man, we see that all the points contained in the definition of "pseudoscience" given by Wikipedia, are applied to finished "tonteoría" of anthropogenic climate change.
Thomas Huxley once said something that toos scientists should keep in mind when proposing beautiful and exotic theories: "The great tragedy of science is the murder of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."
0 comments:
Post a Comment