The Major Effects an Invalid Scientific Hypothesis Can Have

Scientific hypotheses can have an enormous effects even if they are invalid, especially if they are widely believed. Can you guess which one I am describing? Here are some clues:

What scientific hypothesis

• has been shown to be invalid? [See here and here for specific problems; for more general discussion see here.]
• leads to policies that increase the poverty of the poor the world over, discussed here?
• is being used as the basis for trying to starve green plants of one of their essential nutrients in the name of environmentalism, as discussed here?
• is being used as the justification to increase the incomes of well placed supporters?
• is being defended by arguing that its validity should be decided by majority vote of “experts” rather than the scientific method?
• is being falsely defended by claiming that 97% of climate scientists support it, as discussed here?
• is being defended by calling non-believers “deniers” in the sense of holocaust deniers for public relations purposes?
• is being defended as helping to support enviromentalism when it actually makes life worse for many non-human species, particularly birds, bats, and green plants?
• leads to decreases in support for actual environmental improvements by lowering net incomes, which results in humans directing more of their income to necessities?
• is increasing the size, intrusiveness, and cost of government including the United Nations and reducing the role played by economics and market forces and thus economic efficiency, as discussed here?
• is being used to argue for lower global temperatures when humans do better with and prefer soemwhat warmer temperatures than we currently have?
• is being supported by the US Democratic Party even though it has resulted in major Party losses in 2000, 2010, and 2016? In 2000 Gore lost West Virginia and the Presidency in substantial part on the basis of his attacks on coal (based on the scientific hypothesis under discussion) even though West Virginia had long been a Democratic state. In 2010 the Democrats in Congress lost control of the House of Representatives in large part as a result of their votes for the Cap and Trade (Tax) bill, which again was based on the same hypothesis. In 2016 Trump won many usually Democratic states which were concerned by loss of income and jobs, resulting in part from support for the hypothesis.

You guessed it: Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW), discussed here.