The Gold Standard |
|||
|
|
scream-of-consciousness; "If you're trying to change minds and influence people it's probably not a good idea to say that virtually all elected Democrats are liars, but what the hell."
The Gold Standard |
|||
|
|
"If the number of Islamic terror attacks continues at the current rate, candlelight vigils will soon be the number-one cause of global warming. " |
This will be the comment box |
I am not sure about "turns the table on" as much as much as gave a polite and well reasoned response to. Inhofe seems to be practicing the new civility the left demands of the rest of us.
The scientific method requires observations, forming a hypothesis which explains the observations, performing experimentation with predictions based on hypothesis and modifying the hypothesis based on the results of the experimentation.
AGW is based on observations and computer modeling designed to fit the preconceived hypothesis. Rather than being able to design experiments, the scientists so cavalierly treated their raw data that it is not available to others who might want to check their work.
How about asking Breitbart to offer a cash prize to any modeler who can take the data up to 1990, plug it into their programs and predict the last 20 years without changing any of the fudge factors they have built into their model?
It would not prove anything but would show us who seems to have the best model.
Laurence
"It's not personal"
That sounds a lot like
"No pressure!" = we hate you and wish we could kill you where you stand.