Bravo, Tom Gardner!

You've listed the essence of the scientif method, which is of course
what needs to be followed if we are to arrive at the true explanation.
All other approaches are simply "belief", which even though
passionately held can be wrong (cf, flat earth, earth centered
universe, no moon landings, etc.)

I think cranks forget the "... that can disprove the prediction"
requirement is because it means work - which they don't want to do
simply to make a political point.

-John

Tom Gardner wrote:
On Dec 24, 1:17 pm, T8 wrote:
On Dec 24, 2:16 am, gander wrote:

The
only people who are aware of the data and are not yet convinced of the
truth of the slow-disaster that is global warming and the consequent
eco-system collapse and extinctions are intellectually dishonest,
genuinely mentally impaired, or sociopaths.

Can you refute my earlier posts, or the articles I've linked to, or


He doesn't have to, any more than you have to disprove the
climatologists' claims. The fundamental principle is:
- the person that makes a claim has to prove it, with the corollary
- the more extreme the claim, the more extreme the required proof

Proof traditionally requires:
1 state the theory
2 make prediction based on the theory
3 do a test that can disprove the prediction
4 repeat 1-3, if necessary

In general, many cranks forget the "... that can disprove the
prediction" requirement.

The problem that the climatologists have is that the only test that
will satisfy some people is that the climate has irrecoverably
changed.