Dr Phil Jones, a renowned ‘pro-global warming’ researcher admitted in an interview with the BBC: “No statistically significant warming for the last 15 years.” While Jones admits there has been no statistically significant warming he goes on to say that he BELIEVES it has warmed, and therein is another problem for even the possibility of generating good science – many if not most scientists involved in climate change research are not neutral, politics has infiltrated what might have been science and perverted it by attempting to convince us that untestable hypotheses are in fact scientific in nature.
BBC question to Dr. Jones: “When scientists say “the debate on climate change is over”, what exactly do they mean – and what don’t they mean?”
Dr. Phil Jones response: “It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view.”
In fact even if there was anything close to a consensus, it wouldn’t matter. Science is not a popularity contest, it is a method. To democratize science is to make it into religion.
Beyond the fact that the AGW hypothesis lacks solid scientific credulity amongst those who remember what science actually is, those that promote it, fail to promote discourse on the range of means that might be employed to deal with it. Rather, it seems that AGW hysteria is being actively promoted and used as a means to an ends. For example, if we were to consider how to go about coping with the predictions then, by the estimates of many of the AGW researchers, we would be focusing on sequestration, not carbon taxes. Carbon taxes are beyond dubious as a means of reducing CO2 production AND, if the AGW hypothesis is correct (and also their assumptions on the potential for disaster given their models), then the ALREADY EMITTED CO2 has us on course for inevitable disaster and the slowing of production has next to no effect whatsoever.
So why is there a rush to get a tax on carbon? Many governments around the world are viewing it as some sort of lifeline against what is and shall continue to be, the continuing economic spiral of doom. Most government leaders are frantically seeking new sources of revenue. In the USA, they’re just printing it. The AGW models, and hysteria over global warming has been around for two decades – I know, I used to promote AGW myself back in the 1990′s. So why now? To use an American political phrase “It’s the economy stupid.” And truly it is. The career politicians are terrified of losing their seats as the economies of the world, one by one, grind to a halt; for they will no longer be able to bring home the bacon that their constituents have grown so accustomed.
To sum up, the party is over.
As a scientist, I require testable hypotheses that can be verified and made increasingly more legitimate via the process of developing tests that attempt to prove the hypotheses false. If the tests are unable to prove the hypotheses false and many others try the same tests and obtain the same result, then we can call the hypotheses a scientific theory. Until then, it is only as scientific as the second coming of Christ (it’s been two thousand years. . .still waiting). Predictions of the future have been a means of social control and manipulation through-out the centuries and continue to be so. Many are waking up to this fact. we are tired of being chased from one false warning to another. We are tired of governments abusing power to enrich a few at the expense of the many. I cannot (at this time) accept the idea of the unscientific hypothesis of AGW being used to set policy, make laws, or create new, and what would certainly be, highly regressive taxes upon me and my children. The AGW hypothesis seems to be only another novelty in a long line of political novelties.