There are many aspects to the style of science underpinning the theory of global warming that remind me of something the American scientist Irving Langmuir christened pathological science. Wiki for once is accurate and defines it as -
“Pathological science is a psychological process in which a scientist, originally conforming to the scientific method, unconsciously veers from that method, and begins a pathological process of wishful data interpretation.”
It goes on to say it has the following characteristics –
■The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
■The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.
■There are claims of great accuracy.
■Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.
■Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses.
■The ratio of supporters to critics rises and then falls gradually to oblivion.
If ever there was a thumbnail sketch of the “science” behind global warming and what looks to be the life-cycle of its popularity, it would be the above.