The Economist Strains to Salvage AGW Theory

In science, a valid hypothesis must be predictive. If it is not, it is deemed to be wrong. When it comes to the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (i.e. AGW), the prediction was decidedly straightforward:  higher global temperatures. The ‘boiling’ planet of our imminent future was to be directly and undeniably tied to the activity of mankind, generally, and to the burning of fossil fuels, specifically. We were warned only of one, singular, connective truth: the more CO2 mankind deposited in the atmosphere, the warmer it was going to get. Period. Or so the theory told us...

At no time did the warming alarmists predict that the earth’s temperatures would level off. And because the theory did not predict any such stasis, it likewise did not anticipate the need for an explanation of a flattening temperature line. After all, one does not forcefully predict ‘A’ while simultaneously providing reasons for why ‘A’ will not occur.

Fast-forward to 2014 and reality has not gone as the AGW-ers had expected or planned. Indeed, the temperature data are not cooperating at all. But the irksome question is: why on earth not? 

If we were to honestly hold with the principles of the scientific method, the validity of the AGW theory would necessarily come under scrutiny, for what was predicted was not subsequently observed. If, on the other hand, in contrast to the scientific method, we were to adopt malleable principles, we would passionately search for ways to explain real observations with adjunct, secondary-theories that could then be retrofitted into the primary-theory of AGW. 

Enter The Economist to the rescue! The London-based magazine recently published an article that reassured AGW believers that all is well with the theory (albeit tweaked). The explanation for the ‘mystery’ of plateaued global temperatures has been found! Never mind that “settled science” ought not require any explanations for outlying ‘mysteries’ -- the important thing is that we now understand “where the missing heat has gone”! Never mind that no one inside the overwhelming, scientific consensus ever foresaw this particular head-scratcher -- the wonderful truth is that we now know where the evasive warming has been hiding: “in the oceans”! Never mind that only flat-earth-troglodytes would ever need to double back and rationalize real observations with new justifications -- the joyful news is that we can now point to “where exactly in the sea the missing heat is lurking”! Never mind that a blind faith in dogma is the very thing climate skeptics are regularly accused of The Economist has managed to salvage AGW theory through its steadfast and reverential devotion to it!

Perhaps for its next trick, The Economist could offer an explanation for why polar bears are still managing to thrive. Then the AGW crowd could really breath a sigh of relief!

In science, a valid hypothesis must be predictive. If it is not, it is deemed to be wrong. When it comes to the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (i.e. AGW), the prediction was decidedly straightforward:  higher global temperatures. The ‘boiling’ planet of our imminent future was to be directly and undeniably tied to the activity of mankind, generally, and to the burning of fossil fuels, specifically. We were warned only of one, singular, connective truth: the more CO2 mankind deposited in the atmosphere, the warmer it was going to get. Period. Or so the theory told us...

At no time did the warming alarmists predict that the earth’s temperatures would level off. And because the theory did not predict any such stasis, it likewise did not anticipate the need for an explanation of a flattening temperature line. After all, one does not forcefully predict ‘A’ while simultaneously providing reasons for why ‘A’ will not occur.

Fast-forward to 2014 and reality has not gone as the AGW-ers had expected or planned. Indeed, the temperature data are not cooperating at all. But the irksome question is: why on earth not? 

If we were to honestly hold with the principles of the scientific method, the validity of the AGW theory would necessarily come under scrutiny, for what was predicted was not subsequently observed. If, on the other hand, in contrast to the scientific method, we were to adopt malleable principles, we would passionately search for ways to explain real observations with adjunct, secondary-theories that could then be retrofitted into the primary-theory of AGW. 

Enter The Economist to the rescue! The London-based magazine recently published an article that reassured AGW believers that all is well with the theory (albeit tweaked). The explanation for the ‘mystery’ of plateaued global temperatures has been found! Never mind that “settled science” ought not require any explanations for outlying ‘mysteries’ -- the important thing is that we now understand “where the missing heat has gone”! Never mind that no one inside the overwhelming, scientific consensus ever foresaw this particular head-scratcher -- the wonderful truth is that we now know where the evasive warming has been hiding: “in the oceans”! Never mind that only flat-earth-troglodytes would ever need to double back and rationalize real observations with new justifications -- the joyful news is that we can now point to “where exactly in the sea the missing heat is lurking”! Never mind that a blind faith in dogma is the very thing climate skeptics are regularly accused of The Economist has managed to salvage AGW theory through its steadfast and reverential devotion to it!

Perhaps for its next trick, The Economist could offer an explanation for why polar bears are still managing to thrive. Then the AGW crowd could really breath a sigh of relief!