Climate ‘Science’ is Anti-Science; How do you Disprove a Consensus?

By: - Climate DepotJune 11, 2018 3:39 PM

by co2islife / Jun 9, 2018

One of the most difficult concepts for people to understand is the science doesn’t prove theories, science is the process that disproves theories. In real science, the null hypothesis is the consensus, and conclusion of the peer group. Under normal circumstances, the peer group consensus is based upon the results of reproducible experimentation. In real science, people aren’t running around trying to convince people what has already been accepted as the scientific truth. For instance, we no longer have people running around trying to prove that the earth is round…well, almost no one (Click Here). Real science states the null and sets out to reject it. Science rejects what people believe, it doesn’t reinforce it. Real science rejects the null. Real science disproves what people believe. It never proves that things are what people think they are, that is an impossible task and would require an infinite number of experiments.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Real science is the “belief in the ignorance of the experts.” Real science takes what is accepted, and proves that it is wrong. The accepted position is the status quo, the consensus and real science attempt to prove everyone that believes what everyone knows to be true to be gullible fools. Real science is about claiming “I’m right and the world is wrong, and I have the experiment to back it up.”

That isn’t how Climate Anti-Science is done. There is no scientific method in Climate Anti-science, there is no scientific process in Climate Anti-Science, there is no experimentation and reproducibility in Climate Anti-Science. Climate Anti-Science shuns classical scientific methods and instead turns to science by authority, science by dictate, science by consensus, science by peer review, and science by computer models.

Why is that so wrong? Because you can’t reject a consensus, you can’t reject a peer group study. Just how does this anti-science even work? You simply can’t ever be wrong if you have enough political power and reach and a likeminded computer programmer.