[MiNe 109]

In article ,
Jerry Peters wrote:

In rec.audio.tech MiNe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Jerry Peters wrote:

Me:
In real science questions are answered by evidence. If tree-ring data
from 1960 on doesn't work, it isn't used.

You're ignoring the point: if the tree ring data doesn't work from
1960 on and there is no known reason why it doesn't correspond to actual
temperatures after 1960 then how do we know it's correct, for say 1600?
Hand-waving about "evidence" doesn't cut it.

One of those reasons could be anthropogenic CO2.

The abstract here looks like a typical investigation of the problem:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1692171/

"These possibly anthropogenically related changes in the ecology of
tree growth have important implications for modelling future
atmospheric CO2 concentrations."

"Possibly" in other words we have a hypothesis. Another one that says
AGW is the cause. Wow, I'm really impressed by your faith in climate
"science".

Thank you! Hypothesis is a step in the scientific method.

This is a quote from Richard Feynman, from a talk called "Cargo cult
science", you might want to read the whole speech, BTW:

"Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be
given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know
anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you
make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then
you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well
as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem.
When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate
theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that
those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea
for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else
come out right, in addition."

Now contrast that with climate "science", where evidence contrary to
the theory is ignored, where anyone questioning the current othodoxy
is called a "denier". Looks more like a religion to me, especially
when some of the more extreme True Believers call anyone that dares to
question the "science" are implied to be criminals. What's next,
heresy trials for those of us who are sceptical of the alleged
"science" of GW?

Yes, I'll bet that's what Feynman meant.

Stephen

Yes, he almost exactly describes "climate science" and "enviro-science".
They use the form of science without following its principles. They're
a form of religion for the cognescenti.

No, he describes good science. The description of climate science is
your opinion.

I put climate science in the same class with economics, they both
attempt to explain highly complicated systems with statistical
techniques and modelling. They both have limited success in doing so.

I can think of differences between them.

Stephen