June 18, 2011

AGW scientists creating their own worst case scenario

Phrenology - it's real science.
With all the phony AGW (man made global warming) hysteria coming out of certain scientists, with the recent data padding to suit the story line, I noticed myself last night doing something I think the pseudo-science AGW community is doing something the real scientific community would want to deliberately avoid.

I was flipping through the channels on my cable box last night and I paused at some science show (I don't recall the name) to read the description of the show.  There were two topics being covered in the episode.  The first part was the effects of lightning on ionization in the upper atmosphere.  It sounded interesting, that is until I read the second topic, how lightning related to global warming.  Right then they lost me.  Not just on the second topic, but also on the first.

They discredited themselves in my eyes by discussing the lightning and global warming, and given that, I immediately doubted the credibility of the show on the first topic.  Oops.  

Do scientists really want people to view them as penultimate authorities on everything?  Do they want to risk turning people off so much that they aren't believed on anything because they are so single-minded or so misguided in one area?  That's pretty much where they're headed - a worst case scenario for science.  People turned off by science because they don't believe scientists or think they are too 'powerful' or knowledgeable  for their own good would imply a trend away from science and scientific achievement.

If I were a scientist I would be vigorously critiquing pseudo-scientific work where ideas is being passed off as facts because it hurts my profession.  Human-caused global warming is the phrenology of our time.  There's something going on - climate does change, just as people behave in certain ways.The problem with both AGW and phrenology is not the existence of evidence but the non-robust interpretation of that evidence into a non-robust theory that is self-justified as the only possible explanation of the evidence.

Actually, that may be a little unfair to phrenologists.


  1. I don't know that phrenology dominated as much press, or commanded as much funding.

    AGW is definitely worse.

  2. No it wasn't so all-encompassing, but they were about equal in the foolhardiness department.

    But you're right AGW is way worse.


Disagreement is always welcome. Please remain civil. Vulgar or disrespectful comments towards anyone will be removed.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Share This