The scientific community uses unverifiable model projections of global warming to gorge itself on taxpayer money.
When discussing global warming it is important to understand the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. Wikipedia defines the difference this way:
A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a phenomenon which still has to be rigorously tested. In contrast, a scientific theory has undergone extensive testing and is generally accepted to be the accurate explanation behind an observation.
The problem with the greenhouse theory which is actually the "enhanced" greenhouse theory is that it has never truly been tested. The alleged increase of global temperatures over the past century certainly cannot be proven to be "unprecedented" since in the millions of years that the Earth has actually had a climate, it has only in been in the past couple of centuries that man has had the ability to measure temperatures and far less time than that to measure them globally.
The scientists who promote the global warming "theory" over the past two decades have sought to prove that the increase in temperatures is unprecedented so that they can tie it to man's use of fossil fuels. They have done this most notoriously with the controversial and discredited "hockey stick" graph. Even if it could be proven that Mann's hockey stick graph were an accurate representation of temperatures, which it is not, the graph itself only goes back a thousand years and only represents the Northern Hemisphere's temperatures. In other words the infamous graph is a millennium short of the reaching the time of Christ, the rise and heyday of the Roman Empire and all the many centuries before and then of course it does leave out half of planet Earth completely.
Unable to prove their theory using the past and knowing that their shtick of blaming every single variation in the Earth's weather from snow storms to droughts on climate change is both unscientific and wearing thin to an ever more skeptical public, the climate change cult uses something which can not be proven in order to sell their "theory" climate model projections of the future. It makes sense in an underhanded way, if you can not prove your theory with the past, or with the present you boldly go where no one can prove you wrong, the future.
Not only does the use of climate model "projections" of the future have the advantage of being unverifiable, they are a gold mine to the scientific community. To show how truly unscientific this method is let's continue with the definition of a hypothesis from Wikipedia:
For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it.
Can you test the projections of a climate model? Of course you can, you simply wait to see if the projections come true. The scientific community overcomes this basic of all scientific principles with the argument that "the projections of the models are so dire that we cannot wait for them to be proven right." This is an activist and not a scientific argument, it is also circular logic at its best. "Our models prove that we cannot wait for our models to be proven correct." How unscientific is this practice? From An Introduction to the Scientific Method:
The scientific method requires that a hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests.
Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary.
The accuracy of earlier model projections and how the climate change cult "tweaks" their models to get the results they want are matters for another day but let's just say that two decades of model projections tweaked or not are proving to be less than "robust" as the scientists like to say.
Brian Prat, a Professor Sedimentology, Paleontology-Geology at the University of Saskatchewan sums up the little game being played on the world’s taxpayers this way:
"There has grown a whole industry of taxpayer-funded climate modelers whose equations can’t reproduce last week’s weather let alone past climate change at all, but whose crystal balls universally forecast impending disaster (and of course the urgent need for more research money)."
Why is the scientific community so willing to ignore well established scientific standards and principles when it comes to global warming? In part it is that many scientists are activist who seek to promote agendas and not science but as always it is a good idea to "follow the money" and climate modelers are not the only ones feeding from the tax payer fed trough.
If you have a series of "scenarios" based on model projections of future climate which are accepted as being "scientific" those projections themselves become a gravy train for other scientists to use for their own scientific hypothesis game, a game which is paid for by the world's taxpayers. A scientist can take the projections of future warming which cannot be verified and apply for grants to do studies based on those unproven "scenarios." The practice is so common now that very few in the scientific community even raise an eyebrow less alone raise the alarm at this very unscientific practice.
To review, global warming is "proven" by the computer model projections of future climate which of course cannot be verified. These unverified findings are then used by other scientists to conduct studies which reach other unverifiable conclusions. On some occasions these second studies are used for even more studies to reach even more unverifiable conclusions. Unverifiable hypothesis (climate model projections) become the foundation for more and more unverifiable studies and upon mountains of such studies the global warming scam is built and billions upon billions are spent not the least of which are on the studies themselves.
There have been literally thousands upon thousands of such unscientific studies done during the "climate change era." Here is just a recent example from a news story at NBC News about "possible" future hurricane intensity. One way to quickly identify the lack of scientific seriousness behind a story is the use of the word "could" or "may" as in the opening paragraph of this story.
Wind-whipped mayhem may ratchet up as the global climate adjusts to ever increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, according to a new study.
Then of course the qualifiers which explain exactly how uncertain the findings really are and in this case they actually use the word caveats.
There are caveats, however. Just because the winds associated with the waves will become more intense in a warming world does not necessarily mean that hurricanes will be stronger or more frequent in the future.
Well then why do the study? But the statement why the entire global warming charade has no real scientific integrity, forget the caveats for a moment, is the key phrase here "in a warming world." Their entire study is based on the premise that there will be a warming world but their warming world is nothing more than a computer game. They can no more "prove" that the future will be warmer than I can prove my Dolphins will win the Super Bowl in 2050. It is a hypothesis, an unverifiable hypothesis at that. This "scientific" study is based upon an unscientific premise which makes this study unscientific as well.
The scientists based their study on 17 model simulations of Earth's climate with carbon dioxide concentrations about double what they are today, which is the current trajectory for the end of this century if greenhouse gas emissions remain unchecked.Under this scenario, they found....
Model simulations are not facts and scenarios are not real. The modelers can make the future be anything they want it to be. Even if they are honest in their programming the science and the variables which go into their calculations are more complex than even the human brain. For the climate community and their well-funded enablers throughout the scientific world, the models are really all that they have. Most important of all though the model projections are the goose that keeps laying the golden egg. The model projections are what the scientific community uses to generate fear and funding to keep their self-perpetuating money machine pumping out cash. This is why the scientific community fails to follow basic scientific principles, to follow them would be to shut off the cash flow.