A classic from the Climate Scum

On occasion the CS can be a touch heavy-handed but the recent Whitewash! Whitewash! is classic, ending with the inspired:

But that is not science - that is closing your eyes to Truth. The so-called AGW theory is an non-falsifiable oxymoron, and theories that are non-falsifiable are not scientific! It has also been disproved many times, by Gerlisch and Tscheuschler, by Soon and Baliunas, by Miskolczi, by Ernst-Georg Beck, by Lord Monckton, by McIntyre, by Inferno and finally by myself! And by its nature of being unfalsifiable and falsified at the same time, AGW theory leads to a contradiction, and logically this means that it has to be wrong. Reductio ad adsurdum!

That so good it really out to be taken up by the theologues.

More like this

(two entries from my old blog) I've been reading Ernst Mayr's This Is Biology: The Science of the Living World. In it there is this great quote: It is often asked why we do science? Or, what is science good for? ... The insatiable curiosity of human beings, and the desire for a better…
Revere stirs the pot (of chicken soup) to ask why alternative therapies are presumptively regarded as pseudo-science. The reflexive response of the quackbusters has been that alternative therapies fall on the wrong side of some bright line that divides what is scientific from what is not -- the…
Charles Montgomery's excellent expose of the so-called "Friends of Science" group must have really hit a nerve, because it has drawn an over-the-top response from Terence Corcoran in the National Post. It appears that Corcoran was so incensed by it that he didn't bother to check whether anything…
Here's another basic concept for the list: what does it mean for a claim to be falsifiable, and why does falsifiability matter so much to scientists and philosophers of science? Actually, it's not just falsifiable claims that the science crowd cares about, but also falsifiable theories. Let's…

non-falsifiable oxymoron

I thought it was a non-falsifiable carbondioxymoron, myself.

So he quotes Inferno as a source, not knowing Denial Depot is a spoof site. Poe rules.

Oh, talk about getting sucked in without bothering to chase the link ... that's the good Baron's spoof site! Chuckle ...

And by its nature of being unfalsifiable and falsified at the same time, AGW theory leads to a contradiction, and logically this means that it has to be wrong.

Smart enough to recognize the contradiction, not smart enough to realize where the error in logic lies.

Two in a row? Ok, this is turning into quite a poor show. You're all ruining the genius of that paragraph.

By carrot eater (not verified) on 08 Jul 2010 #permalink

Well, I read it while rebooting a server and wasn't paying close attention, what can I say?

But it is brilliant.

They should have gone back to the source i.e Karl von Poppergrinder.*

A theory is falsifiable as we saw in section 23,if there exists at least one class of homotypic statements which are forbidden by it; that is if the class of its potential falsifiers is not empty.


All swans are white

Why is this science? because you could discover a black swan. Science advances by such falsifications. In such a case you would have to accept the only alternative universal synthetic statement, i.e.

All swans are black

This also applies to the universal synthetic statement known as Oreskes' law i.e. that all climatologists think that the climate sensitivity is about 3K. However this has been falsified by the discovery of a black swan i.e. Richard Lindzen.

* The Logic of Scientific Confusion.Page 112.

By deconvoluter (not verified) on 09 Jul 2010 #permalink

AGW was "disproved by Inferno"? Obviously CS is a man who knows his sources!