The following is excerpted from the preface of "Not Even Wrong"; illustrated edition; published by Basic Books; written by Peter Woit, and suitably modified by me to reflect the controversy surrounding man made global warming and/or climate change theory and all the hype involved:
The physicist Wolfgang Pauli was known for his often less than polite criticism of the work of some of his colleagues. He would sometimes exclaim "wrong" (falsch) or "completely wrong" (ganz falsch) when he disagreed with someone. Near the end of his life when asked his opinion of an article by a young physicist, he sadly said "it is not even wrong" (Das ist nicht einmal falsch). The phrase "not even wrong" is a popular one among physicists, and carries two different connotations, both of which Pauli likely had in mind. A theory can be "not even wrong" because it is so incomplete and ill-defined that it can't be used to make firm predictions whose failure would show it to be wrong. This has been the situation of man made global warming/climate change theory from its beginnings to the present day.
This sort of "not even wrong" is not necessarily a bad thing. Most new theoretical ideas begin in this state, and it can take quite a bit of work before their implications are well enough understood for researchers to be able to tell whether the idea is right or wrong. But there is a second connotation of "not even wrong": something worse than a wrong idea, and in this form the phrase often gets used as a generic term of abuse. In the case of the man made global warming/climate change theory, the way some researchers are abandoning fundamental scientific principals rather that admit a theory is wrong is something of this kind: worse than being wrong is to refuse to admit it when one is wrong. Not one of the computer models being used to predict the future of earths climate changes has ever been able to predict the climate changes from the past to the present, even though they were fed every last bit of scientific fact as based on the hard evidence of what has actually happened to our climate to date. Algore intentionally uses the term "denier" to imply that anyone who dares to disagree with he and his colleagues in the political sphere, or his coconspirators in the United Nations, is akin to the anti holocaust ranting's of those who hate Jews. He also cleverly uses the term "outlier", which in the scientific community defines something in their findings that is at odds with the theory being tested, but is considered to be inconsequential to the final outcome. Why does the phrase "Final Solution" come to mind? Oh, yes. Maybe it's because in order "act before all the evidence is in, just in case it's correct" requires an ungodly blend of Fascistic Socialism to be imposed on everyone. Carbon Credits; Cap and Trade; Mercury filled light bulbs; Toilet Capacity; Bovine Flatulence (a fitting term for the methods the "bull in the china shop" green regulators in charge envision implementing), and there are so many more to mention it would take a compendium "the size of Baltimore" to index the injustices to be done in the name of "Saving the Planet", "Before it's too late!" (or we really know what we're doing). If you doubt me, study the evidence with an open mind, not one filled with the preconceived notion that the only "pure" scientists are the ones who do research on the governments dole. (Where do you think most university research grants come from? How about peer pressure coupled with the drying up of funds for unpopular research?) If you believe that we can learn from the past, remember the recanting of his heliocentric theory by Galileo