"Oh really? What is it?"
"Well, I've never heard of it before, but over the last six seconds, its performance has been great!"
"Umm, hey, just this second, didn't it go down?"
"Yeah, but that's all part of the plan. It's supposed to go down this second, then go up in fifteen."
This isn't a conversation you'd ever hear, at least outside of the failed "day-trading" of the late 90's. No one bases their stock purchases off of a few seconds of data - and surely no one would cling to a hypothesis made after only those few seconds, even when the evidence turns against it. No economist, no layperson.
That's in the social sciences, the ones where "real" scientists decry the lack of scientific method and rigorous testing. But as articles have shown time and time again, articles have shown recently, scientists - at least certain environmental scientists - are doing just that and worse.
The "global warming" hypothesis, which has been derived using approximately 150 years of reliable weather data, is one of the most shoddy excuses for science that the world has seen in the 20th century. The same people who claim that nature is ever-changing and dynamic say, in the same breath, that the only way the climate of the Earth would change is if humans caused it.
Fluctuations in the climate of this planet are normal, even on a large scale. Ice ages and warm periods alternated long before humans evolved, and though we lack specific data, smaller pieces of time would almost definitely show fluctuations as well, localized trends and atypical years. But before, nobody was around to analyze these localized trends. Even more importantly, nobody was around to profit off of their analyses.
150 years of weather data is junk on its own. Without more data from many thousands of years, it's as useful as knowing the last six seconds of stock performance. It says, literally, nothing about climate trends.
Still, some scientists insist upon interpreting the data as evidence of a huge global trend - and forecasting doom for the planet. According to them, soon we'll see the ice caps melt and the ocean levels rise to the point where Manhattan will be underwater. Take that, New York. But the problem with this whole theory is that, if you want to play the "tiny bits of data" game, the ice caps have actually increased in size over the past 20 years. This is, of course, ignored - after all, why accept a new idea when the old one's still bringing in the media attention and the grant funding?
Anyway, now, there are intense floods all over Europe. Torrential rain, incredible monetary damage - it's all very bad. And what's it getting blamed on? That's right. Global warming. The interesting thing about this is that these same scientists had predicted that global warming would lead to hot, dry summers and milder, wetter winters. So how do they say, now, that this is evidence of global warming? Easy, they twist what they'd said before. Global warming, they say now, would also lead to random thunderstorms in the middle of summer.
And that's how it always works. Any time something's said that refutes their silly hypothesis, they expand the hypothesis so that the new phenomenon is also part of it. So much for the scientific method. I hope that a hundred years from now, when Manhattan and San Francisco are still on land and doing just fine, people will look back on all this as nothing but a joke.