Thursday, December 31, 2009

Intelligent Design and AGW

Intelligent Design and Creationism both propose the existence of a super-natural power, and so cannot be considered scientific theories. This was the finding of Federal Judge John E. Jones, and requires no assumption about the truth or falsehood of either theory. You can read his ruling here. He says, intelligent design "is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory".

Anthropogenic Global Warming makes no claim about super-natural power. Nevertheless, the theory has no empirical basis. Nobody has performed experiments upon the climate to show that increasing C02 concentration causes a rise in temperature and decreasing CO2 causes a drop in temperature. All we have are climate histories of dubious accuracy.

The fact that we have not tested the AGW theory with repeated experiments on the climate means the theory has no empirical basis. It does not matter whether AGW is true or not. It does not matter how many climatologists believe in AGW.

Climatologists protest that they cannot perform experiments upon the climate. They are quite right. They say that they will be unable to make predictions if they are required to perform such experiments. Yes, that is indeed the case. So they say they are entitled to make predictions without experiments. Well, they can do what they like.

For every ten convincing and superb theories I come up with in my lab, only one turns out to be true. That's because I subject my ideas to the test of experiments. Maybe I'm incompetent too, but at least my incompetence is held in check by experimental tests. Climatologists don't have to bother with experiments. They can believe whatever they like. Consensus and Peer-Review are their basis for their theories.

UPDATE: I posted the above statement, or close to it, at The Lippard Blog.


  1. Kevan: I like your site and agree with most of what you say. Just one niggling point. The term is anthropogenic, not anthropomorphic. The latter ascribes human form to a thing, while the former refers to things caused by humans.

  2. Peter: Good call. Thank you for the correction. I'll get it right in future, and I think I'll sneak in and correct my existing entries. I'm glad you like the site.

  3. The spell-checker on Google does not recognize "Anthropogenic". But I checked the spelling on the internet, and it appears to be correct.

  4. Do you not consider carbon isotope measurements to be empirical? Fossil fuel carbon can be directly identified by isotope composition.

  5. Carbon isotope measurements are empirical. They are based upon our understanding of nuclear decay and the 5700-year half-life of carbon 14.