Is “Climate Change” science or pseudoscience?

I have a new op-ed in the Washington Examiner today that questions whether “climate change,” as commonly defined today, is a scientific concept. The op-ed is a very brief summary of a longer post on the topic here. The longer post contains all the references and links to supporting material, including a link to Karl Popper‘s famous book on the definitions of science and pseudoscience, called Conjectures and Refutations.

From the op-ed:

“Tornados, nor’easters, hurricanes, mid-winter thaws, 100-degree days, cold snaps, droughts, and flooding creeks all are presented as evidence of human-caused climate change, “proof” that human emissions of carbon dioxide are leading to an overheated planet.

However, Karl Popper, the famous philosopher, would say that these meteorological events do not support human-caused climate change because none of them can falsify the idea. If every event supports an idea, and no event can falsify it, the idea is not a scientific hypothesis.

Popper’s examples of pseudoscience included Marx’s theory of history. He observed on page 35 of his famous book, that “A Marxist could not open a newspaper without finding on every page, confirming evidence” for the theory. Freud’s theories were the same; every clinical case confirmed his ideas. A hypothesis that is not refutable by any conceivable event is not scientific.”

Washington Examiner.

Published by Andy May

Petrophysicist, details available here:

3 thoughts on “Is “Climate Change” science or pseudoscience?

  1. Read the long version.
    Very good
    For some unknown reason the charts
    did not load on my old compter.

    A few of my own thoughts:

    The models are inyended to scare people,
    NOT for accurate projections.

    Evidence of my theory:

    (1) After 40 years of “refinements”,
    models over-predict global warming
    by more than ever — they are not
    getting more accurate.

    If accurate predictions were a goal,
    at least a fudge factor would be added,
    to make the predictions appear to be
    more accurate, and

    (2) The model that least over predicts warmin —
    the Russian IMN — gets no special attention.
    If accurate predictions were a goal,
    INM would get the most attention.

    For example, would weather forecasters
    ignore their most accurate model,
    and use an average of all models?
    I doubt it. Not if accurate predictions
    were their goal.

    If climate models do not have accurate
    predictions as their goal, then they should
    be decribed as “political computer games”
    used as a prop to support climate change
    scaremongering. I believe the usual term,
    “junk science”, is too kind.

    Richard Greene
    Bingham Farms, MI

  2. Hi Andy,

    Great article. I am doing research for a book I am writing called “Heresy” about the inquisition like behavior that takes place when someone questions the current “Scientific” narrative. I am hoping to find some individuals that I can collaborate with in order to produce this book. I’d love to chat with you in the near future if you have the time.


Leave a Reply