18-01-2013, 03:38 AM
My point to all this, of course, (and I can easily go on from here) is that it is not very difficult to show "alarming" data biased toward one's own agenda. The problem with drawing conclusions based on same is obvious:
Data is only as good as the interpretation accompanying it. Moreover, the independent analysis of it must be solidly based in GOOD scientific practices. Where any examples of similar systemic behavior of climate exist
separate from the presumed "forcing factors" being argued by MMGW proponents, a re-evaluation of the hypothesis is in order. Rather, what we have here is a stubborn "Church of Climatology" doctrine being promoted
irrespective of fatal flaws being employed in direct opposition to Scientific Method.
Data is only as good as the interpretation accompanying it. Moreover, the independent analysis of it must be solidly based in GOOD scientific practices. Where any examples of similar systemic behavior of climate exist
separate from the presumed "forcing factors" being argued by MMGW proponents, a re-evaluation of the hypothesis is in order. Rather, what we have here is a stubborn "Church of Climatology" doctrine being promoted
irrespective of fatal flaws being employed in direct opposition to Scientific Method.
GO_SECURE
monk
"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."
James Hepburn -- Farewell America (1968)
monk
"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."
James Hepburn -- Farewell America (1968)