Socrates Paradox

If one considers what is purported to be the ‘science’ behind anthropogenic global warming (AGW) one has to be brain dead not to be a skeptic.  The purported ‘science’ is a delicate balance between two shaky factors, the collection, adjustment and averaging of temperatures throughout the world and the computer modeling of world climate.  The “Argument From Ignorance” in this case is best described by Professor Richard Lintzen, “What was done, was to take a large number of models that could not reasonably simulate known patterns of natural behavior (such as ENSO, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation), claim that such models nonetheless accurately depicted natural internal climate variability, and use the fact that these models could not replicate the warming episode from the mid seventies through the mid nineties, to argue that forcing was necessary and that the forcing must have been due to man.”  The net result of this shaky science is to claim a human-caused warming of 0.6 C.  The whole of this purported ‘science’ is mired in the quicksand of the leaked emails known as Climategate where the top scientists behind AGW discussed manipulating data, subverting the peer review process, destruction of historical data, preventing publication of dissenting views and control of what is to go into the IPCC report.  And people accept this “science” as gospel.