http://www.eckernet.com/2009/12/when_you_cant_defend_the_line_blur_it.html Pissing you off and making you laugh since 2002 Wed, 04 Jan 2012 10:55:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= http://www.eckernet.com/2009/12/when_you_cant_defend_the_line_blur_it.html/comment-page-1#comment-5587 J. Ewing Thu, 03 Dec 2009 22:27:56 +0000 http://www.eckernet.com/?p=4192#comment-5587 Credit where due: http://www.looktruenorth.com/limited-government/climate-change/10493-muddled-science.html Credit where due:
http://www.looktruenorth.com/limited-government/climate-change/10493-muddled-science.html

]]> http://www.eckernet.com/2009/12/when_you_cant_defend_the_line_blur_it.html/comment-page-1#comment-5585 J. Ewing Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:00:44 +0000 http://www.eckernet.com/?p=4192#comment-5585 The other fallacy in all of this "science," and has always been, is that the fundamental of the scientific method is to form the hypothesis and then TEST. We will know if the hypothesis is correct, MAYBE, 90 years from now, when the planet is exactly 2.1 degrees warmer than it was when they made that prediction 10 years ago. The "MAYBE" will be because, even if they are correct, they will not have proven that it was "anthropogenic" CO2, or CO2 at all, which caused the temperature rise. And if you read the IPCC report, the actual prediction is "somwhere between 0 and 20 degrees." The other fallacy in all of this “science,” and has always been, is that the fundamental of the scientific method is to form the hypothesis and then TEST. We will know if the hypothesis is correct, MAYBE, 90 years from now, when the planet is exactly 2.1 degrees warmer than it was when they made that prediction 10 years ago. The “MAYBE” will be because, even if they are correct, they will not have proven that it was “anthropogenic” CO2, or CO2 at all, which caused the temperature rise. And if you read the IPCC report, the actual prediction is “somwhere between 0 and 20 degrees.”

]]>