Then a Miracle Occurs

Back in high school, I had a lucky t-shirt.  I wore it for every physics test and it served me well.  It featured the cartoon you see above of two scientists working on a mathematical proof.  The first scientist has written, "Then a miracle occurs..." as part of his work, and his counterpart thinks, "You should be more explicit here in step two."  The cartoon always struck me as funny.  Now, it seems a little to real.

On my next podcast, I'm going to be discussing how climate scientists need to be a bit more explicit, but not in step two.  They need to be more explicit in step one.  You see, the "consensus" on climate change, in my view has skipped step one of developing their consensus.  They never even attempted to "reject the null hypothesis."  This is a fundamental step in claiming a new scientific theory has any validity.  You must first demonstrate that the old theory is wrong.  Climate scientists didn't do this.  They have just claimed their theory to be the right one without ever trying to prove that the old ideas are fundamentally incorrect.

I'm sure you've heard the phrase, "there's nothing new under the sun."  That applies to climatology.  My view, and the view of many skeptics is that there's nothing new in how our global climate system functions.  The same processes that are driving the climate today have driven climate since water vapor first started evaporating from the developing oceans.  The same forces that created the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period have created the Modern Maximum we are currently experiencing.  This is the null hypothesis.  In order to prove Man Made Global Warming, the climatologists must first prove the Modern Maximum is different from the two previous events.  They haven't.  Instead, they have said that a miracle occurred, making carbon dioxide the leading driver in our climate system starting at the dawn of the industrial revolution.  Anyone who disagrees is a pariah who should be prosecuted for dissent.  Well, my next podcast is going to be full of dissent, and I plan on being explicit in steps one, two, and three.