SCIENTISTS WARN OF GLOBAL COINCIDENCE

Washington, D.C. (SatireWire.com) — Sea levels swelled, but they doubted. Temperatures soared, but still they questioned. Glaciers disappeared, yet even so, they refused to believe. But now, the sudden disintegration of a massive Antarctic ice shelf may convince even the most hardened skeptics that industry scientists have been right all along.

"I'm sure this disappoints the apologists, but there can be no doubt now that there is one very obvious reason why all these things are happening," said Dr. Milton Suter of the Center for Climatological Happenstance. "And that reason is: Because they are."

The numbers supporting Global Coincidence, Suter insisted, don't lie. In the last 100 years, while industrial carbon dioxide and methane emissions have surged, the world's average land surface temperature has risen 1.0ºF, and the oceans have risen 6 to 8 inches. "For most people, that would be enough," Suter noted. "I mean, right there, all that adds up to an incredible coincidence."

But then, in the last month, the 800-square-kilometer Larsen B ice shelf in Antarctica fractured and collapsed. "So on top of everything else, a 500-billion-ton chunk of ice just happens to melt and break apart? Frankly, that's not just a coincidence," said Suter, "that's weird."

BUT IS IT SCIENCE?

While the Global Coincidence theory has gained several new adherents, including many in the Bush administration, some scientists remain skeptical. "I've seen their data, and frankly I wonder if there's not some kind of cause-and-effect relationship that we should be addressing," said Dr. Kathryn Burke of UCLA. "I believe Global Coincidence may be one possible scenario, but I think we should do more studies that point to possible linkages between events."

That kind of reaction angers Global Coincidence proponents like Dr. Christian Barstow of the World Climatic Coincidence Fund. "More studies? How long do we have to wait before these yaysayers realize that the results are in?" he said. "It's time to accept that Global Coincidence is very real, that if we don't do something, it's only going to get worse, and that if we do do something, it's only going to get worse."

That call to inaction, however, has also been questioned. Last week, a Wall Street Journal reporter discovered that most CG scientific organizations were actually funded by energy companies.

Responded Barstow: "Yeah, that blows my mind, too. I mean, of all the people who could be doing this research, what are the odds it would be us? Global Coincidence strikes again."

DOES IT STRIKE ELSEWHERE?

Buoyed by the climate studies, corporate and government scientists are now investigating the influence of Global Coincidence in a number of different areas. Researchers at the U.S. State Department have used CG to verify that U.S. foreign policy decisions and international reaction to U.S. foreign policy decisions are wholly unrelated. In health care, Global Coincidence is being blamed for a variety of illnesses, often with startling results.

"Right now, we're looking at people who die of lung cancer, and people who smoke cigarettes, and we see that often these are the same people," said Dr. Russell Crowder of the American Tobacco Institute's new Center for Inescapably Random Occurrences. "I don't know what the odds are of those things happening independently, but they've got to be astronomical."

"That is just stupid," shot back Friends of the Earth spokeswoman Millicent Hu. "All these things — pollution and climate, policy and reaction, cigarettes and cancer — are no more coincidences than if I put two and two together and get four."

"Whoa, that's what happens when I put two and two together!" replied Crowder. "Freaky."

But already, detractors such as Millicent Hu are becoming increasingly rare. Some credit overwhelming evidence in favor of Global Coincidence. Others point to an exchange last week at the first annual International Conference on Incredible Global Coincidence between guest speaker Dr. John Milton and a Greenpeace activist:

Activist: "Look, everything is not a coincidence. I mean, if you shoot me with a gun and I die, that's not a coincidence. You have a gun. You pull the trigger. Bang. I'm dead."

After the applause died down, Milton drove home his point that there is no point in looking for a point. "All in all, the data is stunning. The British growing season is now longer than ever. The Arctic ice is considerably thinner than it was 50 years ago. The 20th Century's 10 warmest years all occurred in the last 15 years," he said. "Given that, I think I speak for everyone in the Global Coincidence community when I say, 'Wow. Go figure.'"

Thank you for this article. Science today has relied on inference for so long that truth is no longer relevant.

Statistical inference is the most common inference of choice, but has little to do with reality.

Even worst was the null hypothesis, it probably set Science back further than statistical inference.

The definition of the term "Scientific Method" includes a section on the frequent use of EMPIRICAL Testing of an hypothesis.

Empirical is a tough one for scientists to accept, as it requires that Science be tested without using Science.

Empirical testing is based on experience and observation: scary stuff for the "house-of-cards," statistical-inference, "scientists" of today.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.