Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward
That is the point I keep trying to point out. Measurable, yes. Repeatable and replicable, no! We don't have another planet for a control, and we can't compare just one variable and keep the other ones constant. We don't even know what all the other variables are. And we can't do 50 or 100 experiments and compare them to do statistical averages.
In any other scientific endevour, this lack of rigor would have any theory based on this limited of data as, "intriguing, but not testable. Let us know when you figure out how to test it.". In Global Warming, it's "quick, let's restructure the world economy, no matter how many people starve, because it has to be right."
(As for my lack of understanding of the scientific method...Degree in Micro/Molecular Biology, minor in Zoology, minor in Chemistry, long-time fossil collector, which requires a good knowledge of stratigraphy and general geology, hobby of studying quantum physics (as best I can), and three decades of computer programming, which is doing complex logic and finding flaws in the same. I think I know my way around the course...)
|
Given that background (assuming it's true) I'm extremely disappointed in you. Clearly none of those interests are directly related to climatology but you should at least know better that to state that first paragraph. The studies, the theory, the results are not about duplicating the Earth you silly boy, as I'm betting you well know given the rest of your post.
The conclusions or the vast majority of climate scientists is based on a variety of evidence not simple co2 or temperature fluctuations as you harp on.
Given your scientific background I think it even more prudent that you present your evidence and data to the journals and the climate scientists!