Keywords: Hypothesis, hypothesis testing, scientific method, null hypothesis, testable hypothesis, scientific hypothesis
Greenhouse effect
AKA Greenhouse gas effect, GHGE, was never formulated as a scientific, testable hypothesis. It is pre-science, not science, a thought experiment, or model, currently summarized in (mainly) 2 papers: Manabe & Wetherald 1967, and Held & Soden 2000. Using a model of how they think the atmosphere works, plus calculations from those papers GHGE supporters calculate their greenhouse gas warming effect. The details of this calculation are obscured because its supporters never discuss nor debate it. They call it "settled science" or "basic physics". In fact it is neither science nor physics. This is the basic lie at the heart of climate doom propaganda.
GHGE is not even a scientific hypothesis because it is not validated. There aren't even any rigorous tests proposed for it. There are many alternative ways the calculation can be done using other models of how the atmosphere behaves. I can think of 4 models which calculate a negligible "greenhouse gas effect" because their model of atmospheric behaviour is different. In science, we decide between competing models of how something works by formulating each as a "testable hypothesis". The "hypothesis" part is the explanation for it. The "testable" part is the proof of the pudding. Supporters and critics of a hypothesis should formulate real world experiments to test the idea. Every valid test must pass, meaning the predicted hypothesis results must agree with experiment and observation. If any single test fails, the hypothesis is abandoned or reformulated.
So far, greenhouse gas effect supporters have succeeded by corrupting science. They by-passed the "testable hypothesis" requirement for science and just declared their idea "settled science".
"climate science"
Before it became "climate science", the study of climate was called climatology. Modelers behind the greenhouse gas effect renamed their work as "climate science" because it wasn't any kind of science at all. It was modeling. Not very good modeling either because the modelers ride roughshod over rules for making good forecasts. Science involves empirical observation and/or experiment done under controlled conditions. At its worst: modeling is just making stuff up.
No comments:
Post a Comment