Add new comment

...the same thing is happening with climate science.
A cluster of scientists realized in the 1980s that not only was CO2 a greenhouse gas and we were producing a lot more of it in the atmosphere, but that the globe should theoretically warm as a direct result of the increased CO2 levels...they developed some rudimentary models and honed a "strong form hypothesis."
Naturally, some people were skeptical of the hypothesis and had rational reasons for being skeptical - either of the input data showing that the planet was warming or of the secondary effects that cause CO2 to theoretically warm the planet to dangerous levels, rather than only slightly, or of the rate of the projected warming.
As the debate heated up (heh), skeptics started scoring some points...and climate scientists in the anthropogenic/dangerous warming camp moved the goalposts. They started saying "we have a scientific THEORY...once something is a theory, you have to DISPROVE it...not raise questions about it and call that a good rebuttal." Did you see the change? It went from being a hypothesis to a THEORY. Very different meaning in science. And in this case...an entirely WRONG usage of that word. A theory implies that significant laboratory/data analysis/experimental corroboration exists to back up the hypothesis. But...we don't have a long enough/trustworthy enough temperature record, there are still many untested portions of the strong hypothesis, etc...and most of the "proof" the climate scientists are citing is in the form of models that are tuned based on the hypothesis!
And then skeptics brought these objections up.
And the goalposts got moved again. Now it wasn't just a THEORY...it was scientific consensus...it was FACT (something that should not even exist in science beyond basic input data). And now that it was FACT...the burden of proof was not only on the skeptical side...but they needed remarkable evidence to disprove the FACTS.
And now they're moving the goalposts again as we start getting remarkable data to shoot down key aspects of the hypothesis. For example...satellite records that show no increase in water vapor. Or direct measurements of the impact of galactic cosmic rays on cloud cover that suggest a huge chunk of the recent warming was caused by the sun.
Now...not only should we think of the hypothesis as FACT/CONSENSUS...but the people who doubt this FACT are CRIMINALS! People who should be held responsible for the deaths of millions of people that haven't even died yet (seriously...read the headlines lately in the climate blogs and in response to the latest report from the IPCC).
People have a bad habit of playing this game to win an argument.