tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post8640390742539453808..comments2024-03-05T10:52:24.691+00:00Comments on Mark Wadsworth: Can you believe in six impossible things before breakfast?Mark Wadsworthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07733511175178098449noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-36040394301529374082021-01-04T15:22:06.487+00:002021-01-04T15:22:06.487+00:00... as it happens, with CO2 there is little or no ...... as it happens, with CO2 there is little or no correlation and the question of causation is open to doubt.<br /><br />Ozone theory on the other hand, does look reasonably likely and is at least worthy of further testing.Mark Wadsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07733511175178098449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-7911271661177673152021-01-04T15:20:20.861+00:002021-01-04T15:20:20.861+00:00B, agreed.
Problem with AGW is that they take any...B, agreed.<br /><br />Problem with AGW is that they take anything to 'prove' their theory. Stratosphere cools = proved<br />Stratosphere warms = proved<br /><br />But given the importance, we have to work on basis of "reasonably likely". Same as lead in petrol, we can never be 100.0000% sure that it causes brain damage. It might be millions of coincidences. In such a case, anything more than 90% likely is good enough reason to ban it.Mark Wadsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07733511175178098449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-92032202643625647172021-01-04T14:23:10.380+00:002021-01-04T14:23:10.380+00:00Well the classic scientific method goes:
Here is ...Well the classic scientific method goes:<br /><br />Here is a phenomenon.<br /><br />This is my theory to explain that phenomenon.<br /><br />Now I must test my theory: if my theory is correct, we should also observe this other phenonomenon and, if we don't observe this other phenomenon, then my theory will need to be amended.<br /><br />By observing the eclipse, Einstein and Eddrington were able to test the theory of light being bent by gravity. No doubt they hoped that the test would not disprove the theory, but I hope they were good enough scientists not to think, that, if the theory passed the test, that it was in any way "proved".<br /><br />Bayardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15211150959757982948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-58441882429914452642021-01-04T12:13:50.236+00:002021-01-04T12:13:50.236+00:00L, ta.L, ta.Mark Wadsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07733511175178098449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-91249213412281278302021-01-04T12:13:15.184+00:002021-01-04T12:13:15.184+00:00B, what about when Eddington and Einstein looked a...B, what about when Eddington and Einstein looked at the solar eclipse? <br /><br />Do you count that as looking for evidence to support gravity bending theory or as looking for evidence to debunk it? <br /><br />It's easy to show that light doesn't bend in gravity - you just do smaller scale experiments.Mark Wadsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07733511175178098449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-55047123914539959722021-01-04T10:36:51.354+00:002021-01-04T10:36:51.354+00:00"It's poor science to look for evidence t..."It's poor science to look for evidence to support 'your' theory or even 'a' theory. You have to remain open minded and look for evidence against as well as for, or accept that you were barking up the wrong tree."<br /><br />Er no, it's poor science to look for evidence to support a theory, full stop. The scientific method states that you should only look for evidence that disproves a theory. What "proves" a theory is the absence of disproof, not the presence of "proof". All the "proof" is, is further examples of the phenomena that the theory is explaining and, as such, are of no scientific relevance. That is why climate "scientists" aren't really scientists.Bayardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15211150959757982948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-16598088873382795382021-01-03T19:04:33.696+00:002021-01-03T19:04:33.696+00:00The original and still the best....The original and still the best....Bayardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15211150959757982948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-61606676169908372642021-01-03T18:24:30.339+00:002021-01-03T18:24:30.339+00:00Nicely done. My view is that CO2 / MMGW is based...Nicely done. My view is that CO2 / MMGW is based on the same technique as in an earlier times the Medieval Catholic Church used its supposed superior interpretation of The Bible to sell indulgences and keep the proles under the the thumb and stumping up 'rents', or tithes as they were then called.<br />That is, it's a racket.Lolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04586735342675041312noreply@blogger.com