Date: 22 April 17
By: Frank Gue, B.Sc., MBA, P.Eng.,
Burlington, ON L7R 2B5 905 7634 9538
For: Whom it may concern
Re: Climate change, the “red-blue” debate
This proposal is useful and thought-provoking. One of the thoughts, unfortunately, is that the scientific-public-media-education-etc. milieu at present is so heavily biased against AGW skepticism that skeptics find it nearly impossible to be heard. The evidence for this is so personally and publicly overwhelming (books are written) that I will not drag us through the endless proofs thereof.
Being a bachelor of science, I try always to find and fall back as far as I can reach for a scientific tool that may silence the chaos and enable clear thinking. The Scientific Method is a robust, time-tested, and respectable candidate for such a tool. So, taking a deep breath, let us charge in with it. It has four steps and an addendum from me:
1. Collect and organize data. Goodness, haven’t we just collected data!
2. Form an hypothesis that might account for such a body of organized data. Yes, we have as candidates solar cycles, AGW, CO2, etc.
3. Test the hypothesis. No, we have not and cannot ever test the hypothesis; because there are literally scores (hundreds?) of independent variables, and any result will be forever indeterminate. (one failure invalidates the “law” – Einstein)
4. Write a law such as Ohm’s Law (current = voltage divided by resistance, which hasn’t ever failed). No, since we didn’t do #3, we cannot do #4.
5. Continuously challenge the law. Note that, 100 years later, articles still appear attempting to defeat relativity.
We cannot do Steps 3, 4, and 5. Therefore, although we have quite easily proven that there is climate variability, we cannot prove AGW or any other hypothesis.
– end –