A perfect example of it: Climate Confusion: Global Warming Halted by Pollution.
The alarmists are playing whack-a-mole with any data which does not fit their hypotheses and predictions. This is the stuff of politicians, children, and litigators, not scientists.
One definition: An error in reasoning in which one assumes that the observed relationship between current events and some historical events represents a causal relationship.
Such reasoning is not consistent with the scientific method. When data don't fit your hypothesis, you can't makes excuses for your data while leaving your hypothesis unchanged.
If you play that game, you also violate the rules of Falsifiability by making a non-falsifiable hypothesis. My bold:
(Karl Popper) A conjecture or hypothesis must be accepted as true until such time as it is proven to be false. Popper maintains that scientists approach the truth through what he calls "conjecture and refutation." In actuality, scientists approach the truth not through conjecture and refutation, but through conjecture and CONFIRMATION, i.e. demonstration, by means of careful experiment, that a hypothesis corresponds to the facts of reality. Until the phenomenon is proven TRUE there is no obligation to base my attitude toward it on the assumption that it MIGHT be true. If there were such an obligation, then I would be obliged to give serious consideration to every crackpot notion that has ever been put forward.
If an hypothesis cannot be refuted by data, it's not science: it's a belief system. The evidence that there has been no warming for over a decade is difficult data indeed in light of their hysterical predictions, so now they have invented covert warming. This is pathetic and embarassing. Tweaking computer models to fit unexpected data is not science. It's overt fudging.
As a commenter at Watts pointed out, with some math adjusting you can prove Ptolemy's solar system to be an accurate model.
(Thanks to Hogeye Bill's Dictionary of Logical Fallacies)
Related: Breaking: A peer reviewed admission that “global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008″ – Dr David Whitehouse on the PNAS paper Kaufmann et al. (2011). The comments there are great. One example:
What... emerges from this is a convenient flexible device to explain any climate change and blame it on humans. Is there warming? Its caused by CO2. Cooling? It can only be smokestack particles.
