The singular criterion that many people take to determine whether or not something is true is this concept of "falsifiable". Is there a test by which you could determine that a hypothesis is not true? Atheists are really big on this one. "Since there is no way to prove that God does not exist, the concept of God is unfalsifiable and, therefore, nonviable."
Isn't it interesting, then, that everyone has jumped on this "global warming" bandwagon without considering the fact that it's unfalsifiable. You see, we're on the "save the planet" train now. Anyone who isn't on that train is an idiot. So we're mobilizing to save the planet. Well, we have no choice. If we don't save the planet, we'll all be dead soon.
So, let's examine the two possibilities: 1) human-caused global warming is real, and 2) what is going on is not caused by humans. We'll assume we survive the event. In the first case, our survival would have happened because of our concerted effort. Despite the naysayers, enough of the nations of the world worked together and staved off the crisis. Well done, human race! Okay, back up. If the second case is true, the natural cycle that caused the warming will end and the crisis will be over. So, in either case, the global warming alarmists will claim that their efforts saved the planet.
It seems to me that the only way to actually prove human-caused global warming is a) for humans to do nothing and 2) none of us survive. In that case, the last of the AlGorians will croak with their last breath, "See? We told you so." Lose-lose. Of course, that is not a possibility since it seems to be a "universal truth" that humans are causing global warming, so we need to act now -- which makes it unfalsifiable, doesn't it?
No comments:
Post a Comment