Compare and contrast: Global Warming, Intelligent Design

What does it mean to be scientific?  Why do we say that some things are scientific, and others are not?  The traditional definition is that a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, meaning that it must be testable, subject to disproof via investigation.

The scientist proposes, and nature disposes.  Oft is a beautiful theory (*cough* Luminiferous Aether *cough*) consigned to the ash heap of history because experiment cannot validate it - or even produces the opposite data as what was expected.

While it's always disappointing when this happens to you, science demands that the hypothesis be modified to suit the data, not the other way around.  If you can't - if the modification causes the theory to come apart at the seams - then science demands that you abandon the hypothesis.  Some people don't like that.

Now it's worth stating at this point that there are lots of worthwhile things in this world that are not scientifically testable.  Your Volgi summed this up in a neat little package, while discussing Rousseau huffing intellectuals:

Plus, the kids who come in are often times high on themselves and their SAT scores and have increasingly not been exposed to alternative moral systems, like traditional religion, in which they'd hear, "Yeah, you're smart, but so what? Are you good?" Or have pointed out to them that not a few brilliant men have gone on to do profound evil.

Ethics, the Considered Life, our place in the Great Sweep of Time - all of these are worthy, demanding subjects.  Yet none are scientific, because no falsifiability test can be devised for them.

And so with Intelligent Design.  The idea that the Universe was created - designed - by a Creator may indeed be correct.  As they say, a watch needs a Watchmaker.  However, there is no conceivable experiment that could prove or disprove this hypothesis.  The Intelligent Design folks have performed heroically in creating a scientific framework that in many ways explains the workings of the Universe.  In many ways.  But the gaps in the hypothesis loom large, not least of which being that Darwin and his contemporaries had to address very similar objections in the nineteenth century.  A study of history will show debates about Watchmakers, and the equivalent of Irreducible complexity, and arguments like "of what use is half an eye?"

Objections are forgotten, or glossed over, or the subject is changed to a different one.  The name of the hypothesis is changed as public opinion polls swing to and fro (from "Creationism" to "Intelligent Design"). This isn't exactly a sign of scientific strength or confidence in its adherents.

And so with Global Warming.  Its proponents seem profoundly ignorant of history - of the recorded fact that Greenland was warm, or that England was warm enough to be covered by wine vineyards.  And so their statements that 1998 was the "warmest year in a Millennium" are almost certainly wrong.

Objections to their hypothesis are glossed over.  The Urban Heat Island effect - where weather stations that had originally been in cool meadow are now in the middle of hot asphalt parking lots because cities have grown during the last 60 years - this is dismissed as irrelevant even when its trivially easy for a child to show that the effect is real and significant.

Heroic efforts are made to fit the data to theory.  A single tree "proves" the Hockey Stick.  Data is fabricated.  Existing data is subjected to all sorts of interesting statistical analyses, in an attempt to fit it to the "hottest year in a Millennium" conclusion.  Computer models are the core of the theory, but their minders don't even understand how they work.  Or the inherent problems with computer modeling.

The response of the "scientific consensus" to these objections is to change the subject ("Hey, look at the IPCC Report!  Nuthin' but science!"), or to attack the messenger ("Denier!"), or to change the name of the hypothesis (Global Warming! Climate Change! Climate Disruption!).  And anyway, who really cares about data accuracy ...

As with Intelligent Design, none of this inspires confidence.  Key portions of the Global Warming hypothesis are experimentally tested, and many are falsified, like the test showing that positive CO2 forcings are actually negative.  The "scientific consensus" community lurches on, as if ignoring the evidence will win the argument.

And so we're forced to conclude that - as with Intelligent Design - Global Warming is not at its heart scientific.  While the Scientific Gravy Train is cause enough to explain the scientist's behavior, it isn't plausible as a motivation for non-scientists.  Say, the ones making Eco-porn snuff films.  What's with them?

Faith.

Some people - the lefties inhabiting the Media, for example - believe a priori that Mankind is destroying the planet with our pollution.  The Global Warming theory - with its emphasis on CO2 to the exclusion of other, more important Greenhouse gases - is congenial to their pre-existing belief that society must fundamentally de-industrialize.  The theory gives them a scientific veneer to pretty-up their beliefs.  The actual details of the science are quite beside the point.

And so we get the delicious irony of the Intellectual Left, who pride themselves on their rationalism and support for Science (in great contrast to the ignorant Red State knuckle draggers) acting in every way like back woods cracker Revival Tent snake handlers.  The Bible IPCC says it, I believe it, that settles it.

These people, who know nothing of the science, are content to label as "Anti-Science" anyone who attempts to peel the veneer off their Faith.  To watch them in action is to laugh.

Bootnote: My own view on Intelligent Design - other than that it is not scientific - is that it is borderline heretical.  Sola Fide (ex: Romans 3:23-25) tells us that faith alone is needed for salvation.  If it were possible to scientifically prove the existence of a Creator, then of what use is faith?  Your mileage may vary, void where prohibited, do not remove tag under penalty of law.