The Difference Between Old Science, and the New Science
Or, The Difference between using Data to test Hypotheses, and Belief in un-testable Models (the Follow-the-Science Religion)
You can get a lot of crazy ideas in your head when you’re young in Grade School, especially from a Nun. One crazy idea I got was about “what is Science?” I was taught:
Science is creating a Model that you think might describe some aspect of the physical world. And then designing an experiment to test that Model. And then designing and building the experimental apparatus. And then taking Measurements (getting DATA). And then comparing your Model to the DATA to see if is the Model is any good. And then others, using separate Measurements and DATA, need to verify your findings. And today, that’s what I still think Science is, namely, DATA always wins, but even DATA must be verified.
Anyone can make a “scientific model” to show literally anything. Has the model been tested? What were the results?
In Feynman's words:
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
and in Alan Krisch’s words:
One good experiment is worth 10 to the 13th (10^13) or ten trillion theories.
Things have changed:
From: Old Science, trust this Model because there are zillion experiments that confirm it (e.g., Conservation of Energy, Special Relativity, Maxwell’s Equations);
To: New Science (Follow-the-Science Religion), trust this one out of 10 Trillion Models because, even though there are NO DATA to support it and it hasn’t been tested, an Authority has said, “This is the Right Model”.
Skepticism and DATA: Science.
Vs.
Models and Belief: Religion.
I believe that the Figure 1 is an example of Real or Old Science (taken from [1]):
Figure 1. Model (orange) and DATA (blue) for the Earth’s temperature for the last 400,000 years. Multiply the vertical axis by 9/5 (about 2) to get Temperature Change in Fahrenheit.
Why is this Science ?
There was an hypothesis: I can use the Milakovitch Cycles to explain the Glacial Cycle and predict the next Ice Age.
The Model in Fig. 1 is compared with DATA.
The Model just extrapolates somewhat into the future.
And, we find that this Vostok Ice Core Data confirms the Hays et. al[2] analysis of mud core data [different measurements and data].
In contrast, the most important attributes of the “New Science” or the “Follow the Science (FtS) Religion” are:
Models only go forwards in time; they do not need to prove that they agree with ANY past DATA;
Models can be all over the map and don’t need to agree with other models (the Scarier the Better); and
The Models cannot (and never will) be tested.
I shall now give a few examples of the “New Science”, which is all Models and Stories and NO DATA. (You can construct models to show ANYTHING, especially if you are not constrained by DATA).
Greenland Ice Sheet Melting
Al Gore has warned us about how much the sea level will rise when the Greenland Ice Sheet Melts, which he says will be about any day now. Now the DATA from ice cores shows that Greenland has been cooling since the beginning of the this brief Inter-Glacial Period that started about 10,000 years ago, so you would think this DATA would debunk Gore’s claim, pretty straight forward. But there are all sorts of sites which debunk this debunking[3]. Here’s how the debunking of the debunking works, in a nutshell:
First they show DATA confirming, that yes, Greenland has been cooling throughout this (Holocene, don’t worry, this won’t be on the test) Inter-Glacial period (See Figs. 2 and 3);
Then they add to the end of these DATA just a pinch of new “data” from a different source;
Then add at the very end Scary Models (made up Stories) showing there will be outrageous exponentially-increasing temperatures in the future, the more outrageous the better. (See Fig. 4), and none of these models are compared to ANY DATA – they only go forwards in time.
Figure 2. Ice Core DATA showing that Greenland today is about 2 oC (4 oF) cooler today than earlier in this present Inter-Glacial Period.
Figure 3. Ice Core Data showing Temperature in Greenland coming out of the last Ice Age, and again, as in Fig. 2, cooling by a few degrees over the last 10,000 years.
Figure 4. DATA with some Models tacked onto to the end disproving that Greenland is cooling. Note that the Models do not show their ability to agree with past DATA. These Models cannot be tested. But, believe the Models ! (Believing Models is the crux of the new FtS Religion).
I’ll give, few more examples really quickly. The next example, shown in Fig. 5 pertains to the FtS (Follow-the-Science) CoVid-1984 Religion.
Figure 5. Again, Models all over the Map, only going forwards in time. You’re probably supposed to believe the Scariest one (Precautionary Principle). There are no DATA to test any of the Models. In the Old Science the Models would be only where the DATA are, and maybe extend a bit forward in time as shown in Fig. 1.
By now you should be an expert at looking at a plot and almost instantly knowing if it is Science or Religion. One more quick one as a TEST (did I say there wouldn’t be any tests?), is shown in Figure 6, this from the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) showing Models for the rising Sea Level.
Figure 6. Is this Science or Religion? It sure “looks scientific”, even has Error Bars! Hint: if it were Science the Models would be where the DATA are, and there are DATA going back for at least a Century and a half, so that the Models could be tested. No testing required. What is the best estimate: the average all the Models which could show anything and none of which have been tested against any DATA. This in NOT Science. Or, rather, it is the New Science, where Models are not tested, but believed, and that is the “Following-the-Science Religion” or “Narrative”. It is NOT Science.
-------------------------------------------------------------
[1] https://timellison.substack.com/p/anthropogenic-global-warming-vi-milankovitch
[2] Hays et al, Variations in the Earth’s Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages (https://www.whoi.edu/cms/files/hays76sci_268464.pdf)
[3] https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/03/06/fact-check-greenland-ice-cores-proxy-past-present-climate-change, and https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change