Settled Science or Junk Science

NBC Preemptively Suppresses Opposing Arguments

IT IS SETTLED!  The scientific method of discovery has been abandoned in favor of Climate advocacy.

On December 30, 2018, Chuck Todd dedicated an entire hour of Meet the Press to Climate Change advocacy, refusing to allow any voices of dissent from “Climate Deniers” because, as he insists, “the science is settled.”  You can view his opening comments below or watch the entire episode here in case YouTube disables the embedded video.

To claim the science is settled is absurd.  How often have the climate zealots’ predictions been wrong since the 1970s when the original scare was global cooling?  How often have they been caught altering the data to fit their narrative?

More to the point, the scientific method of discovery contradicts the notion of settled science concerning climate change.

According to Webster, the Scientific Method is defined as follows: “Principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.”  The Encyclopedia Britannica takes it a step further.

In a typical application of the scientific method, a researcher develops a hypothesis, tests it through various means, and then modifies the hypothesis on the basis of the outcome of the tests and experiments. The modified hypothesis is then retested, further modified, and tested again, until it becomes consistent with observed phenomena and testing outcomes. In this way, hypotheses serve as tools by which scientists gather data. From that data and the many different scientific investigations undertaken to explore hypotheses, scientists are able to develop broad general explanations, or scientific theories.

Climate Zealots want us to cower in a corner while they impose climate justice in the form of onerous regulations, government control, and fines, all in the name of settled science.  Their claim?  Climate change is driven largely by humans, and specifically by their impact on rising carbon dioxide (CO2) levels, which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated as a pollutant contributing to Global Warming in 2009.

Below, you’ll find a video produced by NASA in 2006 that supposedly models the effects of CO2 as a greenhouse pollutant.  Don’t be alarmed.  It’s a scare tactic.  First, notice how CO2 increases in their model as temperatures decrease in Autumn and Winter (and plants hibernate) but decreases as temperatures rise in Spring and Summer and plants come back to life.  Second, this is a simulated model, and as you’ll see below the research forming the basis of these models is flawed.

A pro-bono scientific study conducted by Drs. James P. Wallace, III, John R. Christy, and Joseph S. D’Aleo debunks the EPA’s theory as completely false.


Settled science?  Hardly.  The EPA’s research and models are unreliable.  That’s why seven additional scientist – Drs. Alan Carlin, Theodore R. Eck, Craig D. Idso, Richard A. Keen, Anthony R. Lupo, Thomas P. Sheahan, and George T. Wolff – signed on to the report produced by Drs. Wallace, Christy, and D’Aleo.

Here’s the abridged report.


The only things that are settled concerning Climate Change are that climates do change, and climate zealots will not tolerate dissent.

It’s the same pattern we’ve seen before.  Ever hear of the THEORY of Evolution?  It’s a theory that should be tested using the scientific method rather than being presented as settled scientific fact.  Instead, anyone who wants to question Evolution by introducing the concept of Intelligent Design is typically cast aside by academia and the scientific community.  Why?  Because Intelligent Design hints toward the supernatural, or at the very least tests the supposed empirical certainty of science.

Most certainly, the biblical concept of God creating everything in six days is discarded immediately, and the concept of a young Earth is almost unanimously viewed as preposterous.  We’re told to look at the stars.  Some of them are billions of light years away, or so we are told.  We are then told our universe must be as old as the time it would take for the light to reach us.  Otherwise, we wouldn’t be able to see the stars.  Seems like a rational argument on its surface…until you start asking questions and proposing other theories.

For instance, how do we measure the distance to a star?

In an article from How Stuff Works, we find a layman’s explanation for measuring the distance to stars:

Image credit: How Stuff Works

The first technique  uses  triangulation  (a.k.a.  parallax).  The Earth’s orbit around the sun has a diameter of about 186 million miles (300 million kilometers). By looking at a star one day and then looking at it again 6 months later, an astronomer can see a difference in the viewing angle for the star. With a little trigonometry, the different angles yield a distance. This technique works for stars within about 400 light years of earth.

There is no direct method currently available to measure the distance to stars farther than 400 light years from Earth, so astronomers instead use brightness measurements. It turns out that a star’s color spectrum is a good indication of its actual brightness. The relationship between color and brightness was proven using the several thousand stars close enough to earth to have their distances measured directly. Astronomers can therefore look at a distant star and determine its color spectrum. From the color, they can determine the star’s actual brightness. By knowing the actual brightness and comparing it to the apparent brightness seen from Earth (that is, by looking at how dim the star has become once its light reaches Earth), they can determine the distance to the star. (Emphasis in original)

Before moving on, we need to additionally quantify these measurements in layman’s terms.  According to How Stuff Works, a light year is 5,865,696,000,000 miles, so the first calculation only works for stars that are no more than 2,346,278,400,000,000 miles away.  That’s 2.35 quadrillion (or 2.35 billion million) miles.  Anything farther than that requires the second method.

That all seems fairly straight forward but is it?

First, we need to ask if our solar system/galaxy is stationary?  Science seems to agree it’s moving.  If our galaxy is moving, is the galaxy associated with the star we are trying to measure also moving?  How do we know with any degree of certainty the speed or direction of its movement in relation to ours?  How does that (exponentially) impact our trigonometric calculation for distance?

Second, we need to investigate the accuracy of brightness measurements.  The video below seems to suggest different sizes, brightness, and color spectrums of various types of stars.

An article from Cornell University seems to claim knowledge concerning the age and movement of stars, which in turn, affects their color and brightness.  Here’s an excerpt.

Often, though, when we talk about stars’ ages being related to their color we are talking about stars which are still on the “main sequence”, since that’s where they spend most of their lives. Basically, it turns out that the hotter (and therefore bluer) a star is while it’s on the main sequence, the faster it burns its hydrogen and the quicker it dies. So if you see a blue star on the main sequence, you know it must be relatively young – otherewise it would have burnt out already. But the converse isn’t true – that is, just because you see a red star doesn’t mean that it’s old! Where this becomes useful is when you look at a bunch of stars (for example, all the stars in a faraway galaxy). If you see that all the stars are red, then you can infer that there hasn’t been much star formation going on in this galaxy recently – otherwise, you’d expect to see some young blue stars just by chance. So you can figure out that the stars in the galaxy must be relatively old.

Another article from Cornell seems to claim knowledge of the changing brilliance and color of stars based on their life cycle.

Read the Cornell articles.  Are the stars verifiably young or old and are they moving toward us or away from us?  How do we know, not based on speculation and educated guesses, but how do we know with certainty?

How can scientists be 100% certain regarding any of these claims?  Have we observed a star’s life cycle from start to finish?  How long is the life cycle of a star?  According to National Schools’ Observatory, a star’s age depends on its size and can range from hundreds of thousands of years to billions of years.

Very large, massive stars burn their fuel much faster than smaller stars and may only last a few hundred thousand years. Smaller stars, however, will last for several billion years, because they burn their fuel much more slowly.

IT’S ALL SPECULATION AND THEORY!  How long has man existed?  How long have we been able to observe nature?

The arrogance of claiming any authority based on things we cannot know with any real measure of certainty is astounding!  Here, Job 38-41 seems appropriate.

Sure, science can answer questions with certainty regarding things that are verifiable and observable (i.e. the existence of gravity), but it should never establish as fact things that are not certain, such as the true nature of stars or the origins of the universe.

As for the age of Earth or our solar system, who’s to say the stars science claims to know so much about were not closer to us before God stretched out the heavens?

Bless the LORD, O my soul! O LORD my God, you are very great! You are clothed with splendor and majesty, covering yourself with light as with a garment, stretching out the heavens like a tent.  Psalm 104:1-2 (ESV)

It is he who made the earth by his power, who established the world by his wisdom, and by his understanding stretched out the heavens.   Jeremiah 10:12 (ESV)

The oracle of the word of the LORD concerning Israel: Thus declares the LORD, who stretched out the heavens and founded the earth and formed the spirit of man within him… Zechariah 12:1 (ESV)

There is so much we don’t know.

Instead of having blind faith in the arrogance of science, I prefer to have faith in God because evidence of His creation can be found in its order and complexity.

Even renowned theoretical physicist Michio Kaku recognizes the existence of God due to the order found in physics and nature.

So, let’s stop pretending the science is settled regarding Climate Change or the origins of our universe and open our minds to the possibility of dissenting points of view.

Tell us (and others) what you think.

This is what others think

Help us improve the quality of our content by offering an honest rating and scrolling down to leave a comment below.

User Rating: 5 ( 1 votes)
Show More

Related Articles

One Comment

  1. I so enjoy your articles. They come with logic and knowledge, not speculation.
    The knowledge that the scientists have is good, as long as it does not keep them from the truth. So much of what they cling to would be thrown out if they acknowledged there is a God and He is the God of creation and beyond.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Back to top button