Tuesday, 25 March 2014

The limits of science

We all know science evolves and learns more every day. They make mistakes, they make assumptions, and they act upon those assumptions, and carry some for decades until someone (like with stomach ulcers) discovers the reality, at which point the assumptions wither and die, as they never existed in any more than the words of the scientists in the first place.

 There are lines in science where they cannot go beyond at any point in time, ie they can never know more than they actually do.

Anyone disagreeing try going to the doctor with a mystery illness, and maybe ten years later and seeing the difference between the initial diagnosis and treatment. It is an evolutionary process in science, far clearer in medicine as doctors have absolutely no option admitting they do not know and can not help, whereas these earth sciences can be as rough or vague as you like and who's going to know either way, till it starts costing us money and we suddenly realise they are no clearer on their climate science than doctors are in treating cancer. They know some causes and almost no treatments. People dying from cancer usually die sooner from the chemotherapy than they would have without it. But they still prescribe it. Why? One, it makes billions, two, if they did nothing they would look useless and lose credibility for the thousands of illnesses they can treat. 

Chemotherapy is the same as pesticide. If anyone genuinely believes eating traces of pesticide is harmless has to stop and think what it was created to do, kill animals. We are animals, larger than insects, but still not immune to the effects, just on a smaller scale. Chemotherapy kills human cells, the new ones still multiplying, and does not discriminate between cancer and healthy cells. It is less than a last resort as in the rare cases it is cured the organ damage is often permanent. Many patients feel far worse on the therapy than from the illness, and the evidence for cures is so rare it would normally be abandoned.

My point being that science has a red line beyond which they simply do not know, and depending on the discipline can hide or admit it, but when it's easy to hide then rather than use their integrity and refuse to make attributions as if they are certain where they are totally aware (see Climategate as a fly on the wall) they are not. Yes, it almost takes a miracle to catch them out as their area is so complex the smoke and mirrors are on so many layers it would take the equivalent of a lottery winning number for them to open enough to see behind, but it will happen as there is simply nothing behind their claims when reality takes over. They die away and vanish as if they never existed when exposed, which of course they never did except in their words alone.

The greenhouse effect is based on a combination of lab experiments and equations. It simply cannot be measured in the atmosphere as it is too complex and could never be teased out as a single influence when there are others such as air pressure and aerosols which combine with everything else to both warm and cool the air until it reaches its actual temperature. It is far from certain, but using the above processes it is both easily presented as such, and almost impossible to see through. Gradually opposing scientists are finding alternative mechanisms, and this includes one which claims CO2 is a coolant, reflecting far more heat than it absorbs. Now whether or not this is either correct or even properly testable, it does prove it is not possible to be certain, and always possible to present alternative mechanisms in the climate, as unlike medical treatment no one either dies or gets better as a result of climatology, in fact it is a purely observational discipline and one where they may never know anything for certain but it doesn't make any difference to our lives. The tiny edge of reality where some believe we can change the weather should be banned worldwide by law as besides the possible chaos introducing vast amounts of chemicals into the atmosphere to that purpose, the toxicity of the chemicals involved would poison the ecosystem immediately, and get into the food and water system for years to come like radiation would. So besides the lunatic view we could directly change the climate, it is a theoretical area and not designed for certain analysis and never can be by the nature of the atmosphere itself.

But it became treated as a hard science, ie one capable of certainty and now policy making, as if they were so totally certain not just the added CO2 was causing (now, not after we're dead) dangerous warming, but was capable of warming at all, which the more I look the more I find they are not certain. Anyone like me looking more deeply into it discovers it is neither certain nor possible to demonstrate or repeat its results, and there is a growing body of literature showing this as time goes on. They are treating what I have witnessed to be a rough and vague set of assumptions as certain as they are about the cause and treatment of syphilis, and they are acted upon in the exact way as if they know the illness and know exactly what to do about it. Where are the years of trials, the field tests and the control groups? Of course not only don't they exist, they can't exist, there's no alternative earth to work on with 260ppm CO2 to compare the temperatures, no spare planet to try and reduce the CO2 to see if it changes the temperature, and no way of attributing random weather events over each year, decade and century to anything besides weather as that is what they are and always have been. Until and unless 1) Temperatures do rise as they claim and 2) Such major events do become worse (in quality and/or quantity) and 3) they can attribute it to temperatures, and 4) they can attribute that to the rise in CO2 they should shut the hell up and bloody well wait like drug companies have to by law before they can claim a single thing, even when they've known for years they probably do work. That is real science and the climatologists have done the exact opposite in every way.

No comments:

Post a Comment