Sure but that's *exactly* how climate reconstructions work all along. If you dismiss the logic for Heller you dismiss it for alarmists. You can't have it both ways.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Of all people
@ScottAdamsSays knows perfectly well making predictions and checking them is how you check efficient models. That's how he constantly ask to be evaluated. I assume he'll clarify at a point.
End of conversation
-
-
-
Science is nothing without predictions, they are central to the scientific method. You have essentially said that AGW is not science it’s marketing, well I’d agree with that.
-
That's a bit of an oversimplification. I showed you physical evidence of the Great Barrier Reef. It either would have happened without our fossil fuels or with them. The signal from AGW is much higher than natural causes.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Scott please watch this if you haven’t already, it’s very short. Feynman on the scientific method. https://youtu.be/OL6-x0modwY
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
A Science that doesn't predict is no science at all. Predicting is the purpose of the whole thing. So there's the marketing (Gore) and there's IPCC. IPCC track records on prediction while not stellar isn't a shame either IMO.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.