Quote:
Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth
You really are incredible Besoeker.
The point I was trying to make is that there is a scientific claim of the icecaps melting so scientific counter-evidence is presented to disprove the hypothesis.
I said it was a scientific claim because it a claim(based on science) that the initial scientific claim is wrong.
|
In your post #24 it was a scientific claim. In post #29 you said it wasn’t.
It’s largely water under the bridge. Goddard has since accepted that he was in error. However, it does show the difference between the collection and analysis of data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth
You argue that scientific claims for or against the icecaps melting or MMGW don't exist yet when it comes to exactly the same subject you're harp on about quantitative methods, data collection etc etc.
|
Prior to this post, I mentioned data collection exactly once. I don’t recall that I have ever mentioned quantitative methods. No doubt you will correct me if I’m wrong. If that's your take on harping on, that's fine.
There is a more important point here. Scientists are not claiming that AGW exists. They assign a probability that it may. Pedantic you might think. But it is an important distinction for science in general, not just for climatology.