The cult of the anti-scientific climate model – by John Robson (National Post – January 20, 2017)

To say it’s unpleasantly cold might be dismissed as banal small talk. Of course it’s cold. It’s a Canadian winter. And we all saw it coming. Except we didn’t.

For decades alarmists have said man-made global warming is about to end winter as we know it. They claimed to know all about climatic patterns and be able to predict with mathematical precision what 2050 will be like if we do, or don’t do, certain things. And after anything happened they said their theory had predicted it whether it had or not.

They even switched, after long insisting that man-made warming was incontrovertible and only boobs and hacks denied it, to touting nebulous “anthropogenic climate change” that calls all weather proof of a coming apocalypse. But a theory that predicts everything predicts nothing because no outcome can constitute evidence for or against it. Which is not how science works.

In many respects “climate change” was simply a bait, switch and switch, since they continue to hail temperature rises as conclusive proof of their theory while dismissing a lack of temperature rises as irrelevant. “2016 Was Second Hottest Year on Record in U.S.”, NBC proclaimed last week, four days before “A massive ice storm pummeled the Midwest, leaving at least five dead across three states” and the Danube unexpectedly froze. But more fundamentally, science does not work by unconfirmable hypotheses asserted with dogmatic intolerance. It works by controlled experiment.

Chemists add, say, sodium to chlorine in various quantities at various temperatures and pressures, find equations that seem to fit the observed results, then try new combinations to see if the hypothetical relationships hold. If not, the theory is wrong.

For the rest of this article, click here: