Reputable scientists start afresh when their theories clash with experience. Not the climate careerists preaching planetary doom, who have just released yet another fires-and-floods prophecy. This lot adhere to Groucho’s maxim: when predictions don’t work out, they have others
Don’t ask me any questions, but the wavelength of light emanating from an object increases in wavelength if the object is moving away at speed. This is called redshift, I understand. Apparently, it is the observations of this redshift from distant galaxies that has convinced most scientist that the universe is expanding and at an ever-faster rate – thwarting gravity. How to explain it? Well they couldn’t. So, out of thin air, so to speak, to push galaxies apart, they simply invented a mysterious and invisible substance which they call ‘dark energy’. And this ain’t small beer. It is hypothesised to make up almost 70% of all of the energy in the universe.
A group of scientists in Bilboa, Spain, has come up with another explanation of redshift which is that time is slowing down.[i] Now this makes no sense to me personally because my life seems to be running out at an increasing rate. Nevertheless, I will come up with a scientific explanation for time slowing which is that the universe is indeed collapsing on itself as a result of gravity and everyone knows that time slows as the density of matter increases. Or at least I think that’s right because time slows to zero at (or is it just beyond) the event horizon of black holes, which are extremely dense. I don’t expect a Nobel Prize for this brilliant insight, but am quite taken with it and will fly to Sweden if invited.
What is my point to all of this scientific jiggery pokery? Well, to show that if I can inject my theory into it with a straight face you know it is beyond caricature. So much of science in this age of social media and celebrity-status seeking is in fact not science at all. It is sheer unadulterated speculation. When famous scientists like the late Stephen Hawking and Martin Rees talk about humans being overtaken by AI robots in the future and, perhaps, greeting robots from other-worldly advanced civilisations – no, I am not making this up – you know that Ray Bradbury underdid his sci-fi fantasies.
Here are two more from the geniuses that occupy some of our university departments. It is impossible to conceive of our universe and earth happening by chance so there must be an infinity of universes. Ergo one like ours is bound to pop up. And, in fact, when you think about ‘infinity’, an infinite number like ours, and an infinite number only slightly different from ours with imperceptible variations, till we eventually disappear into a scientific orifice.
Then there are those other intelligent civilisations in our universe; no, not the universe this moment occupied by your infinite alter egos, but your very own universe. And why do some scientists think these other-worldly intelligent civilisations exist? Rigour is replaced with crude appeals to large numbers. With so many planets out there, many are highly likely to have intelligent life, it is claimed. No, they’re not. Not if the odds against this happening are anywhere near close to the odds of a bright ape typing out Hamlet. In that case, there are just not enough planets; however many you speculate that there are. But then I am applying rigour to the issue.
(Some) science is becoming a joke and no more of joke than when scientists, based solely on tendentious statistical models, pontificate on the certainty of CO2-caused global warming. You might notice that the latest ‘unscientific’ alarmist IPCC report has disappeared without trace. Ordinary Joes and Jills (as distinct from the self-indulgent residents of rich inner-city suburbs) are waking up to this nonsense. They are ‘woked’, to play a leftist term du jour back to them.
Reputable scientists throw out their theories and start afresh when their predictions clash with experience. Not this lot. They go along with Groucho’s maxim: they have predictions, and when they don’t work they have others. Just in case the earth starts to cool they are already ready with an explanation. This is from LiveScience[ii]
A periodic solar event called a “grand minimum” could overtake the sun perhaps as soon as 2020 and lasting through 2070, resulting in diminished magnetism, infrequent sunspot production and less ultraviolet (UV) radiation reaching Earth — all bringing a cooler period to the planet that may span 50 years.
But wait, “it’s unlikely that we’ll see a return to the extreme cold from centuries ago, researchers reported” And why is that? You need not ask. It’s because of climate change.
You see, its not just rain when drought was predicted, or snow when it was predicted to disappear, or increased tempests and storms which have not increased, or inundated islands which aren’t. Even if it cools across the globe it would have cooled more but for man-made climate change. And you can bet your house that however cold it might get it would have got colder. This is a quite marvellous theory totally impervious to evidence. It is undisprovable. Like Christine Blasey Ford’s accusations against Kavanaugh.
Climate science has become a joke – a bad one. A faith-based theory has taken over evidence-based science. ‘Denialists’ are stripped of their influence, money and jobs. If only the stake was still available.