Academia’s fixation on the hypothesis that humanity’s CO2 is responsible for global warming (AGW theory) has finally drawn attention to what we’re really getting for all of the taxes we pay. For example, consummate Democrat politician Chuck Schumer apparently now acknowledges that his party’s single-minded fixation on nationalizing healthcare was a foolish mistake. Schumer is speaking for many on the Left who now worry about all of the political capital that has been wasted. Academia also miscalculated.
Skeptics of government planning see the waste of capital, lost opportunity and the marginalization of the individual on the altar of Leftist socialist ideology. Both Gorewarming and Obamacare come from the same failed mindset: a belief that unaccountable government bureaucrats should be free to abandon concepts of protecting constitutional liberties and abandon sound scientific methodology because Eurocommie-style socialists know more than you do about how you should live.
It’s been difficult to watch as it unfolded during our lifetime. We’ve been forced to witness in agonizing detail, Western academia’s great accomplishment of the late 20th Century: the creation of the phony pollutant and science of climate change.
“Given that global warming is unequivocal, to quote the 2007 IPCC report,” says Kevin Trenberth, speaking for the Eurocommies, “the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence [on the climate].” Did we hear that right? Did academia’s Dr. T say we should reverse the scientific method?
Did you notice when the pea went from under one walnut shell to another in Dr. T’s quotation above ? Take another look at it.
The first part of Dr. T’s statement is true. There is general scientific agreement that the globe has been warming, in fits and starts of course, for the last three centuries or so. And since it has been thusly warming for centuries, the obvious null hypothesis would have to be that the half-degree of warming we experienced in the 20th century was a continuation of some long-term ongoing natural trend.
But that’s not what Dr. Trenberth is doing here. Keep your eye on the pea. He has smoothly segued from the IPCC saying “global warming is ‘unequivocal’”, which is true, and stitched that idea so cleverly onto another idea, ‘and thus humans affect the climate’, that you can’t even see the seam. ~Willis Eschenbach
The obvious null hypothesis of AGW theory, Eschenbach observes, is that all global warming is natural. Trenberth cannot blame humanity for climate change if he cannot reject the null hypothesis. So, time for Plan B: reverse the null hypothesis. The world’s most well known global warming heretic told us how crazy academia was even before Dr. T’s sneaky Plan B when he famously opined that perhaps aliens did it (see, Michael Crichton, Aliens Cause Global Warming: A Caltech Lecture). Now it’s up to us to prove aliens didn’t cause global warming because, anything is possible, right? No, that’s not how science works!
This statement [e.g., “the null hypothesis should now be reversed”] appeals to the IPCC consensus as a basis for being relieved from the burden of proof and implies that scientists are making too many errors by not reversing the null hypothesis. It reinforces the idea of an overwhelming scientific consensus. Further, it removes the need for scientists to continually make an argument that anthropogenic activities are influencing extreme weather events, which is the original context for Trenberth’s (2011) statement. ~Judith Curry (Nullifying the climate null hypothesis)
“In deciding who should bear the burden of proof in a public debate, we should ask Where lies wisdom?” says Curry. “In the case of testing the efficacy of a new drug, the assumption of no effect is regarded as more wisely assumed in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary, with the burden of proof on those demonstrating the efficacy of a new drug. Even in the context of this relatively straightforward example, the level of proof remains a debatable issue for terminally ill individuals with nothing to lose and a chance of being helped by the experimental drug.”
That’s where we are: Leftist ideology is terminally ill. Socialism has failed every time it’s been tried and it’s failing again. The Left is desperate and that is why the Left has simply taken over the health care system by government fiat and why government-funded academia is being used to take over the economy, using fear of global warming as a tool of propaganda to demonize business and the productive. Sure, we’re witness to a corruption of science in our lifetime; and also, we’re seeing a liberal fascist takeover by the Left of the entire country, which began with the education system and the media and is nearing an end with a nationalization of health care and energy and by regulating every human activity imaginable.
“As a polemic, the idea of reversing the null hypothesis is a strategy for scoring political points against skeptics. However, such strategies are likely to exacerbate skepticism and inflame the political debate… Trenberth should be careful of what he asks for – one consequence of reversing the null hypothesis is that the scientific focus (and funding) should arguably reverse to attempting to disprove dangerous anthropogenic climate change, which has been a position of many skeptics.” ~Judith Curry (Ibid.)
What happens when the roles are reversed –e.g., when bosses have had enough of being regulated out of existence and march in protest: PARIS — They jammed the boulevards, blowing whistles, tossing firecrackers, wearing locks and chains around their necks, and shouting into megaphones… “We feel like we’re being taken hostage,” said Laurence Manabre, owner of a home-maintenance business that has 28 workers — but could employ many more, she said, if not for onerous government-imposed labor rules… “Between regulations, taxes, new laws, and razor-thin margins… we’re being crushed little by little… France has high unemployment,” Ms. Manabre said. “But the French labor code is incomprehensible, and it just keeps getting more complex. How can I possibly hire more people?” (NYT, ‘In Twist on French Tradition, Bosses Take to Streets in Protest,’ 2014/12/01 )