Anthropic global warming theory = junk science

An unfalsifiable theory is, by definition, junk science. Anthropic global warming is unfalsifiable, as can be seen with the recent rise to prevalence of the term “climate change” in place of global warming. Sure, the global temperatures have not risen for the past 15 years, but if you say “climate change,” you can have it both ways. If it gets hotter, it’s our fault. If it gets colder, it’s our fault. The climate has been changing since the beginning of time, but now somehow climate change is the result of human activities. I’m not buying it. For one thing, the faces of the green movement are hypocrites like Al Gore who preach one thing for the masses while doing the exact opposite themselves. And then there’s the fact that the scientists pushing the theory have to resort to falsifying data. If the evidence is clear, there should be no need for that.

Be Sociable, Share!

3 Responses to “Anthropic global warming theory = junk science”

  1. Interesting point Casey! You’re right about an unfalsifiable claim being junk science, and the trouble with people like Al Gore and others who make money off of environmentalism is that they don’t want to have a a claim that can be proven or disproven, it isn’t good for business.
    It’s a shame too, because it detracts from legitmate environmentalism. Is there going to be some sort of man-made environmental armageddon in the near future? Of course not. But is there going to be rapid desertification in the Sahel, displacing millions? You better believe it.
    The trouble with both sides in this argument is that the truth is somewhere in between.

    • casey says:

      Exactly. There are valid concerns such as air quality that could just as easily be the focus of efforts rather than some concocted crisis.

  2. The level of proof needed exceeds Anthropic global warming. If it were just warming there would be no need for radical initiatives and trillions of dollars in costs. It is catastrophe that needs to be proven by evidence. Only catastrophic consequences could justify the adverse economic impact of proposed legislation.