After forming a hypothesis a person wants to make sure there are no variables that can skew the results of the experiments used to prove it out. The hypothesis is subjective; meaning the opinion came from a person’s mind. We want objective results; where the objects speak for themselves. The more the objects speak for themselves without human influence, the more we can trust that the results will be reliable.

Statistical Analysis uses data, models and predictions. The word science is used loosely for this. It is handy for marketing and politics, but with the understanding that there is a high risk of getting poor results. Nothing is a slam dunk to sell and no one is a slam dunk in politics. We will look at the reasons why it is so prone to error.

When someone comes up with an idea concerning random events; such as weather, politics and economics, a human has to set up numerous parameters to form conclusions. They can’t be considered “results” because objects aren’t speaking; there are too many subjective inputs. The results can only be checked after the event happens but probably won’t be repeated the next time. A human has to set parameters on how much data, the duration, what qualifies, the accuracy of collection, and how it will be processed. It doesn’t matter if the human puts it into a computer to help with the work, the parameters are a human production and therefore subject to opinions and errors along the way. It certainly has a high error factor and doesn’t follow scientific method.

Concerning weather, it is interesting to study patterns but we see from day to day the weatherman misses it. On a scale that is of a longer duration there are climatologists. When they collect data, the variables are: location of the points, accuracy of the data, how it is collected, if the duration of collection (has it been long enough to form opinions?), how it will be modeled, who sets the parameters and the list goes on and on. There are so many areas that are subjective, error prone and random that it is absurd to call it a scientific process.

On top of this, the climatologist who sets the parameters are not expert in the areas they collect data. Since GPS has become more precise, it is easier to see that the surface of the earth has areas that rise and sink over time. Michigan was under a glacier and is rising since the weight has left. There are Pacific islands that are sinking but there are numerous variables involved such as the tectonic plates and volcanic activity, erosion and the location of coral reefs along with normal glacial changes that affect ocean levels. They acknowledged this fact in some articles yet still claim that climate change will make it worse. The objective fact is that Pacific islands that sink are a normal process of nature; but determining what is normal is outside any climatologists expertise. The examples of variables like this that aren’t accounted for in their models are unending. We won’t take time to get into the impossibility of the physics that adding a carbon atom to two existing oxygen has any affect on weather.  It takes blind faith in so many areas to believe climate change that it approaches the realm of a religion rather than a science. Just try to reason with a believer and you will see what I mean.