XPost: alt.global-warming, sci.skeptic   
   From: Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/26/2026 12:10 PM, JTEM wrote:   
   > On 1/25/26 1:14 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:   
   >> Dawn Flood  wrote in   
   >> news:10l5h3l$1pmfd$5@dont-email.me:   
   >>   
   >>> On 1/25/2026 5:26 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote:   
   >   
   >>>>>> Now I'm going to discuss how we would look for a new law.   
   >>>>>> In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First   
   >>>>>> we guess it. Well don't laugh that's really true. Then we compute   
   >>>>>> the consequences of the guess to see, if this law that we guessed   
   >>>>>> is right, what it would imply, and then we compare those   
   >>>>>> computational results to nature (to experiment or experience). That   
   >>>>>> is we compare it directly with observation to see if it works. If   
   >>>>>> it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong.   
   >>>>>> In that simple statement is the key to science.   
   >>>>>> It doesn't make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It   
   >>>>>> doesn't make any difference how smart you are who made the guess,   
   >>>>>> or what your name is. If it disagrees with experiment it's wrong,   
   >>>>>> that's all.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Okay, and where's the "experiment" in anthropogenic climate change??   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Where is the experiment in astronomy (Feynman was a physicist) ?   
   >>>> Current CMIP models outputs don't match observations. those CMIP   
   >>>> models hypothesis are invalid (falsified by observations). Lets wait   
   >>>> another 30 years or more to see how nowaday models match future   
   >>>> climate observations.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> You can't be serious, can you?  Do you know of the prediction made by   
   >>> Edmond Halley??   
   >>>   
   >>> Dawn   
   >   
   > So all the decades of FAILED Gwobull Warbling predictions can't falsify   
   > Gwobull Warbling, but Edmond Halley confirmed the entirety of Astronomy   
   > with a single correct prediction?   
   >   
   > Do you TRY to paint yourself as such a frigging shit head, or is this   
   > something that comes natural to you?   
   >   
      
   No.  In the strict sense, a scientific hypothesis/model/theory could   
   never, in an absolute sense, ever be confirmed; as I have told you,   
   scientific truth is "contingent truth," which means that it is "testable   
   & correctable."   
      
   As for the climate models, they most certainly could be falsified!  If   
   the Arctic Sea Ice would start increasing in its annual extent, then the   
   climate models would be clearly falsified, as NO model predicts this at   
   this point in human history!   
      
   Dawn   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)