Monday, January 11, 2016

Science versus science Fiction (junk science)

___I love science. The University of Missouri declared me a Master of Science in 1969. I have a real problem with junk science. I understand the pressure to publish for academics and to pay bills for everyone.

___The scientific method is 1) Experiment and gather data, 2) Form a hypothesis, 3) Test the hypothesis, 4) Peer test the hypothesis, 5) Theory, 6) Law.

___The “Big Bang” idea and the “evolution” idea are outside of science. There were no observations; testing of a hypothesis is not possible; and calling these theories is a scam. Theory has a scientific ring to it, but imagination and faith are involved here – not science.

___I worked as the DBA of the Weather Center in the now Savannah River National Lab at the Savannah River Site. Created to warn locals of how radioactive releases would spread, the Weather Center has collected about 60 years of quality, calibrated climate data. Two certified technicians calibrate the equipment twice yearly in rotation to ensure accuracy. The data comes from instruments on a dozen towers located throughout the 310 square mile Site and the 1000-ft TV tower in Beech Island.

___Junk science differs because data is never questioned for validity, or it is specifically selected to prove an hypothesis. Both practices degrade the integrity of true science. Consider a instrument measuring temperature which was once isolated in a field. The field is now asphalt and concrete and stores. The quality of the data has changed because the environment in which the data is taken has changed.

___Scientists so-called also make assumptions which make their task easier but may lead to false conclusions. In carbon dating, the ratio of C14 to C12 is carefully measured in the lab. The scientist does not know the ratio in the atmosphere or the decay rate 50,000 years ago, but it is convenient to assume that it was the same as in the air in the lab. This is the uniformitarian “theory.” It has been largely rejected, but it is used when convenient by junk scientists. How much C14 was originally present? Junk scientists assume that all carbon was originally C14 and that all C12 currently present is the result of radioactive decay of the original C14 according to the current decay rate.

___Climate “models” are mathematical representations of reality. Not all variables – like volcanic eruptions – are quantifiable, and computers may not be able to calculate results within the given time restraints. Estimates become quesses (SWAGs) rather than reality. Politicians take these and use them as a basis for policy.

___To those who revere science in the extreme, remember the Flat Earth Theory, the Geocentric Solar System Theory, medical science removing “bad blood” with leaches, “The Coming Ice Age” cover of Newsweek 1975, global warming causing 2005 hurricanes like Katrina and Rita and then causing few storms for the next years and then causing Sandy, etc. Some “scientists” have become modern day snake oil salesmen and confidence men!

No comments:

Post a Comment