The scientific bankruptcy of blame-mankind global-warming orthodoxy is made plain by a Canadian climatologist's observation that every United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) prediction and projection has been wrong .
Writing for Canada Free Press, Dr. Tim Ball, a former University of Winnipeg climatology professor, demolishes IPCC's "settled science."
Among his devastating points: Climatology, which studies "one of the most complex systems in nature," suffers from scientific overspecialization. That means lots of researchers know lots of minutiae but don't understand how those minutiae fit together in the real world.
Another major problem for the IPCC is its very definition of "climate change," which assumes mankind's to blame. Yet nobody knows just how much climate changes naturally , so there's no baseline against which to gauge human activity's effects.
And in seeking only to prove its blame-mankind assumption, the IPCC ignores the scientific method's requirement of "falsifiability" -- the need to shoot holes in a theory to try to disprove it.
Thus, the IPCC approach is the opposite of properly skeptical science -- and, as Dr. Ball writes, it "fails the real measure of science, the ability to predict."
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.