Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Is everything a pseudoscience?
Based on the list below, can Global Warming be considered a pseudoscience?
- Falsifiable – it’s a theory so large that designing an experiment to test it is nearly impossible.
- The plural of anecdote is not data. We all have memories of how the climate (weather) used to be — snowy Halloweens of the ’70s, brown Christmases of the ’80s, etc. But is it anthropomorphous or just the dynamic systems of the earth adjusting?
- Data Cherry Picking – Yes.
- Technobabble – Yes.
- Plausible Mechanism – So much of the relationship between the atmosphere and the ocean is unknown that we can’t model a system we have little to no understanding of.
- Unchanging – Yes. Global warming causes every single extreme weather event – except in areas where it doesn’t. Flood? Drought?
- Exaggerated Claims – The world will end in 12 years! No wonder Greta is not in school – If I were convinced that the world was going to end I would not want to spend my days in a classroom. I regret how little convincing it took for me to leave school when I should’ve been there. Hopefully someday, Greta also comes to regret how little time she’s spending in school.
- Certainty – Nobody is more certain of any fact than when they’re wrong.
- Logical Fallacies – Post hoc ergo propter hoc, “After this, therefore because of this.” The earth’s atmosphere is literally a global system – it’s impossible to observe all possible inputs into the atmosphere that could be causing larger reactions across the system. Without the certainty of what we’re observing, how can we be certain of the theory to explain the observation?
- Peer Review – Global warming peer reviewers are a small community reviewing each other’s works. A few dozen people determine what is the acceptable science and what is not. Not just with global warming but many other scientific disciplines as well. As much as half of the scientific papers published are deeply flawed, wrong, or outright fraudulent. Academic science has become a battleground of ideological careerists in pursuit of their own agendas outside of scientific fields.
- Conspiracy to suppress? It’s not a crazed theory if it’s demonstrably true. The media has its own agenda and acceptable narrative — anything that challenges that agenda or questions the narrative is suppressed. Look at Covid and how the media acted like a flock of starlings; as the narrative changed they all instantly moved with the new story in tightly choreographed flights of fantasy. This is not a conspiracy, this is observable fact.
Is there any scientific or technical discussion taking place in the media that is not overrun with pseudoscience or outright falsehoods? Put your favorite scientific political debate to the test.Published in