XPost: alt.global-warming, alt.atheism, alt.messianic   
   From: paul.aubrin@invalid.org   
      
   Le 27/01/2026 à 14:30, Dawn Flood a écrit :   
   > On 1/27/2026 12:16 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote:   
   >> Le 27/01/2026 à 01:23, Dawn Flood a écrit :   
   >>>> To day I danced a rain dance. If it rains tomorrow, how would you   
   >>>> explain that ?   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Only if your predictions can constitute a statistically significant   
   >>> result   
   >>   
   >> That is not enough. One single erroneous prediction can invalidate a   
   >> false hypothesis. But you need many good predictions, all over the   
   >> validity domain, to gain confidence in a new hypothesis.   
   >> All the climate models failed the comparison with observations over   
   >> the 1979 to 2016 periodd.   
   >>   
   >   
   > They also fail over the 2016-2017 period, as well as this past weekend.   
   > Try extending your graph instead of cropping it.   
      
   1) the comparison with reality (observation) became statistically   
   significant in 2016.   
   2016-1979 = 37 years, that is more than the 30 years which define "climate".   
   2) A single counter-example is enough to invalidate a general hypothesis   
   of physics.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)