I think we have all heard this claim for years (That CO2 causes our planet to change drastically) but here I show logically why this is claim is based on false premises. The scientific method explains why it is necessary to first disprove the null hypothesis. The short explanation is that this ensures continuity of ideas and logic. If you do not keep this continuity, you double down on your original mistake and thusly anything you publish or explain within this frame of reference is always going to be wrong. In other words, climate science is not doomed because it is wrong per se, but it is doomed because it is based on a premise that is unproven.
Worth a reblog.
Just last month, these were the claims:
We’re screwed: 11,000 years’ worth of climate data prove it. It’s among the most compelling bits of proof out there that human beings are behind global warming, and as such has become a target on Mann’s back for climate denialists looking to draw a bead on scientists. — The Atlantic, March 9th
Global Temperatures Highest in 4,000 Years The modern rise that has recreated the temperatures of 5,000 years ago is occurring at an exceedingly rapid clip on a geological time scale, appearing in graphs in the new paper as a sharp vertical spike. — Justin Gillis, New York Times, March 7th
Study: Recent heat spike unlike anything in 11,000 years “Rapid” head spike unlike anything in 11,000 years. Research released Thursday in the journal Science uses fossils of tiny marine organisms to reconstruct global temperatures …. It shows how…
View original post 304 more words
Science at Oregon State University is no longer being applied honestly or even in any resemblance to the scientific method. Instead of measuring statistics properly and coming to a good conclusion based off of solid data, we have incidents such as the recent Marcott paper where the data says one thing, and the scientist says another.
The story in this case seems to be that after they performed wrong calculations to get the data they wanted, they put a tiny disclaimer in after the fact that their conclusions in the paper are not based on proper methods. Basically, in the actual paper’s abstract they make several “opinions of the author” and yet they imply strongly that their conclusions come from actual data. What is even worse is that Dr. Marcott admits to it and yet the paper still remains and the news articles remain the same as well. This is easy to see how this could be construed as outright fraud since the brand new PHD Dr. Marcott is performing incorrect methods and yet after admitting it does not change any of the conclusions he made in the abstract. He was caught in the act of lying and instead of apologizing and changing the incorrect lines, he double downs on dishonesty and says that its OK to lie in his conclusions because he put a disclaimer at a separate website that explains that his methods are “not robust.” This does not answer the questions of why he is being dishonest in the first place however. Perhaps we need to start posing the questions for Oregon State University. If we can not expect your scientists to ever tell the truth, how in the world can we the people trust you with our money? And if you can not even apply the scientific method correctly, why should we trust our children in your hands when you obviously just teach them to lie, cheat, and steal instead of following proper science?