Captain's Log: Let me tell you a few things about SCIENCE

This is an adaptation of a discussion that took place in a forum; what you see below is my answer to a post pointing out that nowadays it is pointless and suicidal to ignore the large consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming. I thought it would be suitable material for my blog.

Neither us, nor the documentary [The Great Global Warming Swindle] is ever talking in the sense of: temperature rising or temperature not rising.
If you think you can discard all the documentary just by proving that there was a variation in the climate of, let's say... Australia then:

a. you haven't watch the documentary.
b. you don't understand what we're talking about here.

The core of this documentary is not if there are variations in the climate, but if the variations are man-made and if the proposed countermeasures like the Kyoto Protocol are, if implemented, of any effect.
I studied, among other things, climatology (particularly tropical climatology) at the "Tropical and Subtropical Agricultural Sciences Department" of the University of Florence and I've read a lot, but as far as publications are concerned there isn't much that tells there is a man made Global Warming. There are instead lots of journalists and researchers that come to that conclusion. As well many others that come to opposite conclusions. To come to a conclusion is one thing, to have proof of it is another.

If you see the Sun revolving around the Earth you can say you have proof it is happening and you can even calculate it and measure it, but it happens to be the other way around. Contradictions to the hypothesis that the Sun is revolving around the Earth historically came after a deeper analysis and not nobody denies that anymore. But they still can, as long as they provide further proofs. Beside the fact that an astronomer would tell you that even the latter is wrong, yes, in reality they are both revolving around a common gravitational centre, but being the Sun much greater in mass than the Earth this centre is much, much closer to the centre of the Sun itself.

All this to say, with the words of Prof. Richard Lindzen:

"...people have decided you have to convince other people that since no scientist disagree you shouldn't disagree either, but whenever you hear that in science?! That's pure propaganda".

So the point here is not that people should agree to a paradigm or an idea if they are under the pressure of other people, that's not science, that's politics, and to an extreme propagandistic and totalitarian level. Whoever talk about "consensus" as a meter to choose a scientific theory instead of another is a very very confused person.

None of the so called skeptical researchers is anti-environment, that is just reducing a conversation to the annihilation of the other. I also hear that who rejects this idea of the man-made global warming must be paid by multi-national petrol evil corporation, because, even in the best of the possibilities it's either you are super mad or you are super corrupt to go on being skeptical since "all agrees on the Global Warming".

In the end it all comes down to the reality. Science is the expression of the reality because it is constantly linked to it and this linking to reality is the reason you can call it science. Said that, scientist should investigate reality, analyze the climate and realize that Climatology is by definition the result of a near to infinite numbers of variables. The complexity is so big that every single prediction and computer model simulation adopted so far has been proven wrong by the only thing that matters in the end: REALITY.

I'm not preaching here, in the end whatever you say it is or whatever you do, it will always comes down to REALITY. They can say what they want about Global Warming, if it's not happening it's not. But if it's not happening those same people should at least restrain from saying that it didn't happen cos of Kyoto and Co.

People can go on saying whatever they think of this subject, the line of time will rule out mercilessly everything that was predicted wrong: to say that if you say that in 10 years temperatures will go up one degree and they go down 0.012 degrees your theory is wrong, your assumptions most likely are and most probably you confused the cause with the effect. If they go up they can go up for various reasons, and here is the demonstration that a skeptical worrying is probably more useful: if the cause is not that one you thought it was, it is like when you see fever on a patient and you assume it is disease A, you cure disease A but the patient dies because in reality it's disease T, and by the time you realize it you are in a catastrophic situation cos you are late and ill prepared for disease T, having all and everything spent to largely cure disease A.

That's a metaphor but should be enough to make people understand that we're not talking about a vote, science is NO DEMOCRACY, science is just a pair of glasses aimed to reality, and reality is a bad BITCH. She never flinches from its plans, its rules, no matter what.

Personally I believe the hypothesis that CO2 variations are just the effect of the warming of the planet, not the cause (and the cause to be searched somewhere else). Global Warming theory believers consider true the opposite. This, is self contradictory: to say that only of this two hypothesis can be true. And THIS is the core of the question.
Every scientific research centre can go on as much as they want to study all they want, what I CAN'T TOLERATE is that the politicians are using my tax money on plans like the Kyoto protocol, collecting the votes of the worried people, the taxes from EVERYBODY on measures that in the best of the case are like a putting a cork up the world's arse. One can argue that that it's better than nothing until we can really understand this complicated problem. I say it's NOT. Economically speaking this would cost so much to destroy any chance of having funds to technologically solve pollution problems.

Like Isaac Asimov used to say:

"If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them"

Wrong data ALWAYS leads to WRONG assumptions.
Wrong assumptions ALWAYS lead to WRONG hypothesis
Wrong hypothesis ALWAYS lead to CATASTROPHIC theories

Never believe that as long as it is for good sake you can always put fake data and wring assumptions into the "dough" of your theory.

Discussing about Global Warming with other people I heard something evilly wrong about the scientific method. Most people believe that the scientific method is in brief:
looking at reality, formulating an hypothesis and trying the best you can to prove it right till you can elaborate a theory.
This is no science, this is maybe rotten philosophy.
The scientific method is:
looking at reality, formulating an hypothesis and trying the best you can to prove it wrong with experimental verifications till you have something surviving of your first hypothesis to elaborate a theory.

Using the first method means not linking your hypothesis to reality, means merely trying to convince people of your ideas. But, eventually, reality will ask its toll. It always does.