Is “climate change” science or pseudoscience? – Is it good?

By Andy May

I have a news op-ed inside Judge Washington Today the question of whether “climate change”, as it is often defined today, is a scientific concept. The op-ed is a very brief summary of a longer post on the subject this. The longer post contains all references and links to supporting documentation, including links to Karl PopperThe famous book on the definitions of science and pseudoscience, called Conjecture and Refusal.

From the op-ed:

Cyclones, hurricanes, hurricanes, mid-winter thaws, 100-degree days, cold weather, droughts and floods, all presented as evidence of human-caused climate change: turned out, is “evidence” that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are leading to an overheated planet.

However, Karl Popper, the famous philosopher, would say that these meteorological events do not support human-induced climate change because none of them can falsify the idea. If all the facts support an idea, and no facts can falsify it, the idea is not a scientific hypothesis.

Popper’s examples of pseudoscience include Marx’s theory of history. He observed on page 35 of his famous book, that “A Marxist cannot open a newspaper without finding, on page by page, conclusive evidence” for the theory. So are Freud’s theories; every clinical case confirms his idea. A hypothesis that cannot be disproved by any conceivable fact is unscientific”.

Judge Washington.


Post Rating

Source link


News7g: Update the world's latest breaking news online of the day, breaking news, politics, society today, international mainstream news .Updated news 24/7: Entertainment, the World everyday world. Hot news, images, video clips that are updated quickly and reliably

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Back to top button