Reference: When the figures don't add up, Bangkok Post, February 13, 2009
The review of the book "The numbers game" describes the so called "Texas sharpshooter" fallacy in science (When the figures don't add up, Bangkok Post, February 13, 2009). It holds that if one shoots randomly in the general direction of a barn, and if after many shots have been fired, a bulls eye is drawn around a naturally formed random cluster of bullet holes, then the random shooter will appear to be a sharpshooter. What it means in terms of scientific research is that hypothesis must be tested by a different set of data than that used to develop them, for otherwise one falls prey to circular reasoningt. The climate model of the IPCC contains this very fundamental scientific flaw because there is only one history. The historical climate data that are used to develop the model and its empirical parameters are the same data that are used to validate the model. Even worse, as new data evolve, the IPCC incorporates them into the model selectively to ensure that their twin hypotheses, that human activity causes global warming and that global warming holds cataclysmic consequences unless mitigated in accordance with the Kyoto Protocol, are not challenged in any way.