Differences between Real Science and Man Made Global Warming Science

Mike Herman writes (LINK) Note: Mike uses MMGW, we have substituted AGW

There are at least a dozen differences between man-made global warming (AGW) and real science. While science follows a defined scientific method, AGW uses political campaign tools like polls, demonizing opposition, scare tactics, deception, and propaganda. 

1. Real science says "Question everything".  AGW says "Questioning AGW is reckless because it threatens the planet."
2. Real science never ends, but is an ongoing cycle of testing and correction. AGW tries to break that cycle by claiming "the debate is over" and "the science is settled". "SETTLED SCIENCE" IS AN OXYMORON invented by non-scientist Al Gore to avoid debating his profitable beliefs in public.http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/...
3. Real science develops hypotheses that are falsifiable via testable predictions. AGW ISN'T FALSIFIABLE because it makes contradictory, changing predictions. More hurricanes (see Al Gore's movie cover) or fewer hurricanes (reality now attributed to AGW), more snow or less snow, warmer or cooler than average temperatures, etc. are all cited AFTER the fact as proof of AGW. There is no observation that AGW proponents will accept as refuting their belief. Predictive models created by warming proponents are consistently wrong: http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
4. Real science relies on skeptics to make progress. Many real scientists spend their careers try to disprove accepted wisdom. AGW, on the other hand, intimidates and SMEARS SKEPTICS as "non-believers", equating them to holocaust deniers and treating them more like the Church treated Galileo:http://business.financialpost....
5. Real science grants awards for disproving accepted truths. AGW researchers, on the other hand, have a VESTED INTEREST in only one outcome. They can access billions of dollars in government money only while MMGW is perceived by the public as a threat to humanity: http://wattsupwiththat.com/201.../
6. Real science has nothing to do with polls or consensus, but AGW proponents CONSTANTLY USE POLLS to defend their claims. Ironically, even when they use polls they have to spin their outcomes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/la...
7. Real science doesn't claim validity by citing the credentials of proponents. It respects only data and analysis, regardless of who is publishing it. Einstein was a little known patent office clerk when he overturned the consensus understanding of space and time in 1905 with Special Relativity. “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your guess is or how smart you are or what your name is. If it disagrees with experience, it’s wrong.”-Richard Feynman, Nobel Prize Physicist
8. Real science keeps testing to remove bias and discard bad models. Einstein's Relativity is still being tested a century later. AGW ignores or HIDES DATA it doesn't like:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ear...
9. Real science accepts that bad predictions imply bad hypotheses. When AGW predictions are wrong they don't question the hypothesis...they just change the predictions and REBRAND the movement.
10. Real science never recommends that skeptics be JAILED: http://gawker.com/arrest-clima...   http://ecowatch.com/2015/03/16...
11. Real science doesn't create billionaires who get rich peddling untested theories.
12. Real science tries to account for all interfering variables in studies. AGW simply ignores all the variables that have drastically impacted Earth's climate for billions of years unless those factors are needed to excuse faulty predictions.

Ocean Acidification

Patrick Moore, writing for The Frontier Centre for Public Policy:

Ocean Acidification Will not Kill Coral Reefs and Shellfish

Image: NOAA

When the slight global warming that occurred between 1970 and 2000 came to a virtual standstill, the doomsayers adopted “climate change” which apparently means that all extreme weather events are caused by human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO²). Cold, hot, wet, dry, wind, snow, and large hailstones are attributed to humanity’s profligate use of fossil fuels.

But the pause in global warming kept on and became embarrassing around 2005. Something dire was needed to prop up the climate disruption narrative. “Ocean acidification” was invented to provide yet another apocalyptic scenario, only this one required no warming or severe weather, only more CO² in the atmosphere.

The story goes that as CO² increases in the atmosphere the oceans will absorb more of it and this will cause them to become acidic, well not exactly, but at least to become less basic. This in turn is predicted to dissolve the coral reefs and kill the oysters, clams, mussels, and microscopic algae that have calcareous shells. It was named “global warming’s evil twin”.

Seawater in the open ocean is typically at a pH of 8.0-8.5 on a scale of 0-14 where 0 is most acidic, 14 is most basic and 7 is neutral. Ocean acidification from increased CO² is predicted to make the ocean less basic, perhaps to pH 7.5 under so-called worst-case projections. How do I know that increased CO² will not kill the coral reefs and shellfish? Let me count the ways.

First, contrary to popular belief, at 400 parts per million (0.04%), CO² is lower now in the atmosphere than it has been during most of the 550 million years since modern life forms emerged during the Cambrian period. CO² was about ten times higher then than it is today. Corals and shellfish evolved early and have obviously managed to survive through eras of much higher CO² than present levels. This fact alone should negate the “predictions” of species extinction from CO² levels that are nowhere near the historical maximum.

Read More from Moore here