Dave, the existence of evidence that does not comport with established hypothesis does not refute those hypotheses: science is full of such situations. The motions of distant galaxies conflicted with Newton’s laws of gravity and motion, but this didn’t lead anybody to question Newton’s laws; instead, they cooked up the ‘Dark Matter’ hypothesis, which remains uncertain to this day.
There was a bee in the Amazon that exhibited suicidal behavior under certain circumstances; this is not in accordance with basic evolutionary theory. Somebody eventually came up with an explanation showing that such behavior was actually in accordance with evolutionary theory because of kin selection effects. But nobody questioned evolutionary theory because of this bee’s behavior.
The proper evaluation of a hypothesis requires one to consider the great mass of data bearing on that hypothesis, some of which will be supportive and some of which will be confutative. You then weigh the evidence. In the case of the ACC hypothesis, the vast preponderance of evidence is supportive, and only a tiny fraction of evidence is confutative.
I need to get out of science and into politics. This is more proof that you can say just about anything in politics one day and change your position the next without any need for evidence. “My belief…” Lol.
Well, I’m not a big Mitt fan, but I’m glad to see he’s paying attention, and learning. Perhaps the climate alarmists’ bizarre refusal to even acknowledge the existence of evidence that challenges their models’ predictions is affecting Mitt the way it is affecting Judith Curry:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html
Dave, the existence of evidence that does not comport with established hypothesis does not refute those hypotheses: science is full of such situations. The motions of distant galaxies conflicted with Newton’s laws of gravity and motion, but this didn’t lead anybody to question Newton’s laws; instead, they cooked up the ‘Dark Matter’ hypothesis, which remains uncertain to this day.
There was a bee in the Amazon that exhibited suicidal behavior under certain circumstances; this is not in accordance with basic evolutionary theory. Somebody eventually came up with an explanation showing that such behavior was actually in accordance with evolutionary theory because of kin selection effects. But nobody questioned evolutionary theory because of this bee’s behavior.
The proper evaluation of a hypothesis requires one to consider the great mass of data bearing on that hypothesis, some of which will be supportive and some of which will be confutative. You then weigh the evidence. In the case of the ACC hypothesis, the vast preponderance of evidence is supportive, and only a tiny fraction of evidence is confutative.
I need to get out of science and into politics. This is more proof that you can say just about anything in politics one day and change your position the next without any need for evidence. “My belief…” Lol.
What’s amazing is the state of mind that can make a political word game of a planetary emergency. Astounding.
What do you expect? The guy’s a complete Mormon!