Changing the measure for global warming when your side is no longer winning is like shifting from points to yards in the middle of a football game

And that would be cheating. Robert Traciski observes:

Last week, I wrote about how the record cold temperatures of the polar vortex and impenetrable ice in the Antarctic are being cited as evidence in favor of global warming. That makes global warming an "unfalsifiable" theory in the sense that any evidence against it will be reinterpreted ad hoc as evidence for it.

After I published that, my friend Jack Wakeland sent me a link to an even more brazen reinterpretation of reality: the claim that the 15-year pause in global warming doesn't exist—so long as we use a new and totally different measure of global temperatures.

This is an obvious shifting of the goalposts. The measure of warming that they all thought was fine and dandy when temperatures seemed to be rising now doesn't show rising temperatures. So they have to reinterpret the data to get the result that fits their theory.When someone posted my article on Facebook, commenter Jordan Phillips named the basic pattern of global warming arguments: "In a real scientific theory, you have to make some kind of blind prediction that makes you vulnerable and accountable, so that if later observations contradict the prediction then your theory has no squirm room to avoid its fate. But catastrophic manmade global warming theory is the opposite: it's based on waiting for a weather event to happen, then rationalizing how that event was caused by global warming."

So global warming science is not just ad hoc but post hoc.

Post hoc, ergo propter  hoc, hoc a loogie, bullhoc, it's all hoc all the way down.   The warmistas are shameless.




Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/01/23/what_is_a_normal_temperature.html#ixzz2rGn0ULk9 

Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/01/23/what_is_a_normal_temperature.html