Note: I first met up with the term
"null hypothesis" in the 1980s,
while participating in double blind
tests of audio components.
I've avoided using the term since then,
because it tends to cause confusion.
But I'll break my old rule-of-thumb today,
and hope I don't confuse anyone,
including myself !
The UN's IPCC has a
climate change hypothesis,
that's rarely explicitly stated:
A catastrophic global warming
is in progress, resulting from
man made greenhouse gas emissions.
The null hypothesis is that
observed changes in the climate
are the result of natural variability.
Contradicting the scientific method,
the IPCC's "political science"
assumes its hypothesis is correct,
and its job is to
ONLY collect evidence
ONLY collect evidence
that supports its hypothesis !
Real science starts with
a falsifiable hypothesis to test.
But not the IPCC !
Real science means evidence
that falsifies a hypothesis
is searched for.
IPCC's "political science" means
evidence that falsifies a hypothesis
is ignored !
An alternative and null hypothesis
is the simplest hypothesis
consistent with the known facts.
Regarding global warming,
the null hypothesis is
natural climate variability.
Invalidating this null hypothesis
requires direct evidence
of human causation
of climate change,
that could NOT be explained
by natural variability.
Without such evidence,
the null hypothesis
is assumed to be correct.
That's real science.
Real science does not advance
by a vote (or consensus surveys),
or even persuasion.
Real science advances
by scientists proposing
testable hypotheses,
collecting and examining
high quality data
to disprove a hypothesis,
and making their data available
to unbiased researchers
to see if they will arrive
at a similar conclusion.
Albert Einstein was right
when he said:
“No amount
of experimentation
can ever prove me right;
a single experiment
can prove me wrong”.
The United Nations protocol,
under which the IPCC operates,
defines climate change as:
“a change of climate which is
attributed directly or indirectly
to human activity
that alters the composition
of the global atmosphere
and which is in addition to
natural climate variability
observed over
comparable time periods".
(United Nations, 1994, Article 1.2).
The IPCC focus on ONLY
human greenhouse gas emissions
is NOT a thorough analysis
of climate change science !
IPCC defends its hypothesis with:
(1)
Global climate model projections
( that have been very wrong
for the first few decades).
The IPCC modelers assume
Global Circulation Models (GCMs)
are based on a perfect knowledge
of all climate "forcings and feedbacks".
(that does not exist!)
(that does not exist!)
(2)
A series of assumptions ...
with no scientific proof
they are correct.
Their unproven assumptions are:
(a)
The warming from 1975 to 2000
cannot be explained by natural variability.
(but it CAN easily be explained by natural variability,.
because there was a similar warming from 1910 to 1940,
before the "age of man made CO2" began in 1940!)
because there was a similar warming from 1910 to 1940,
before the "age of man made CO2" began in 1940!)
(b)
Increases in atmospheric CO2
precede increases in average temperature.
(but ice core studies find temperature peaks LEAD CO2 peaks !)
(c)
Solar variations are too small to explain
twentieth century warming.
(appears to be true, assuming we're measuring the right thing !)
(d)
A future warming of 2° C. or more
would be very harmful to humans.
(but we've already HAD + 2 degrees C.
since the late 1600s = no harm !)
since the late 1600s = no harm !)
(3)
Appeals to circumstantial evidence,
( but both are long-term trends
in progress for 20,000 years,
starting long before humans
started burning fossil fuels! )
Their circumstantial evidence is:
(a)
Melting of mountain glaciers,
and Arctic ice.
(b)
Global sea level rising,
(1), (2) and (3)
depart from
the scientific method:
(1)
Global climate models
can produce
meaningful results
only if we assume
we already know
exactly what causes
climate change.
climate change.
But no one knows,
and that's why
in the past 30 years,
the actual global warming
has been only one-third
of climate model predictions!
(2)
Assumptions are impossible to falsify
because they are statements of opinion,
not of fact.
When the IPCC decides to claim
"95% confidence" in its assumptions,
that is a meaningless, self-serving
opinion - the 95% has no back-up,
it is just a group's inflated opinion
of themselves !
it is just a group's inflated opinion
of themselves !
(3)
Circumstantial evidence,
or observations,
in real science
are useful primarily
to falsify hypotheses,
and cannot prove one is correct.
(Popper, 1965, p. vii).
It is relatively easy
to ignore inconvenient facts
-- that's called
“confirmation bias.”
The only way to avoid confirmation bias
is independent review of a scientist’s work
by other scientists who do not have bias.
This type of unbiased peer review
is absent in the climate change "debate".
Those who attempt it are demonized,
and their work is rejected
by academic journals.
When facing scientific criticism,
IPCC’s defenders invoke
the precautionary principle.
The principle states:
“Where there are threats
of serious or irreversible damage,
lack of full scientific certainty
shall not be used as a reason
for postponing cost-effective measures
to prevent environmental degradation”
(United Nations, 1992, Principle 15).
That is a political rule-of-thumb,
not real science.
not real science.
Invoking the precautionary principle
does not lower the required
real science threshold for evidence,
... but it does for IPCC's "political "science" !
The IPCC is not supported by
unbiased evidence-based
real science.
The IPCC is only "supported" by:
- Computer games that have made
wrong climate predictions
for three decades,
- One assumption on top of another, and
- Politicians, and their government
bureaucrats with science degrees,
making authoritative statements,
about the future climate,
( as if they could predict the future ! ),
and avoiding all debate
by going after skeptics
with character attacks!
IPCC's "political science",
is not real science!