{"id":393,"date":"2021-04-05T18:25:38","date_gmt":"2021-04-05T18:25:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/facts2reason.com\/?p=393"},"modified":"2024-10-05T15:41:36","modified_gmt":"2024-10-05T15:41:36","slug":"climate-change-and-the-scientific-method","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/facts2reason.com\/index.php\/2021\/04\/05\/climate-change-and-the-scientific-method\/","title":{"rendered":"Climate Change and the Scientific Method"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

\"\"<\/p>

In Blog 1<\/span><\/a> in this series I described how science as the expression of reason was developed in the enlightenment and how it is coming under pressure today. In this Blog 2 I discuss climate change from that perspective.<\/p>

The following assumption is the basis for the evaluation:<\/p>

The consequences of the political decisions in the context of climate change<\/strong> are potentially of extremely high costs for the society. Therefore the facts and arguments used as the basis for such decisions need to meet very high criteria to make them fit for the purpose.<\/em><\/p>

Climate science <\/strong>is used as the source of arguments<\/strong> to support political decisions to influence the climate of the future. Fortunately there is a way to make sure that such arguments delivered by climate science are sound and not irrational: the scientific method as defined by K. Popper.<\/p>

His major approach to make a theory proof against irrationality<\/strong> is falsification<\/span><\/a>. It must be falsifiable but not be falsified.<\/p>

There are several important aspects of this methodological approach. A major one is that a theory can never empirically be proven correct<\/strong>. Whatever we collect as supporting data for a theory will not exclude that among the data we do not have are those which disprove or falsify the theory.<\/p>

This is the reason why Popper focuses on falsification<\/strong>. If the scientist looks for falsification he will easier be able to identify critical flaws in his theory. A scientist focused on verification, on the other hand, is in danger to pile up useless supporting data but not to find those which make the theory invalid.<\/p>

A major weakness<\/strong> of scientists looking for verification is usually the confirmation bias<\/strong>. It is one of the most delusive attitudes in science. Under its influence the scientist will find the most improbable argument which supports his theory and will overlook and discard everything which questions it.<\/p>

Discussion of climate science from the perspective of Poppers definition of science<\/strong><\/em><\/p>

1. Politics in the drives seat<\/em><\/p>

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is the driver behind the 30 years story of global warming and climate change. Created in 1988 by the\u00a0World Meteorological Organization <\/a><\/span>(WMO) and the\u00a0United Nations Environment Programme<\/span> <\/a>(UNEP) it is reporting to the UN.<\/strong><\/p>

According to the relevant UN documents and the principles governing its work it was created to look into “human induced climate change”<\/strong>, its danger and to propose ways to mitigate it.<\/p>

2. The consequences<\/em><\/p>

This narrow focus had serious consequences. From 1988 onward billions of government money<\/strong> would flow into research of human induced climate change (assumed but not understood) and almost nothing into the research of natural fluctuations of the climate (normal over millennia but not understood either). Therefore from day one the null hypothesis<\/a><\/span> of natural causes of climate change had a difficult time in the science community versus the much more lucrative hypothesis of the humans as the driver. Exactly as Eisenhower predicted<\/a><\/span><\/strong> politics decided about the direction of the research it was funding.<\/p>

What followed<\/p>