I hate to get to philosophical with this. I couldn’t resist.
The narrative concludes that the science that is used to prove the thesis of this video is the hardest of the hard science. Although the thesis that the medieval warming period is a local period of heating, which is greatly exaggerated by the critics calls attention, I stay away from it in this comment.Instead I couldn’t agree more with the fact that science should be viewed as something continuous instead of something discrete.
What makes this science hard isn’t the fact that the researchers had to go to great lengths to attain the data. It’s the fact that the research proves quite decisively it’s thesis. Science relies on proofs. However, science has been proven wrong on numerous occasions. I don’t add this to suggest either that ‘science’ is all wrong, or that science is completely correct. Instead, I suggest that extensiveness used to prove something translates to the probability of it being correct.
As the arguments raised by the climatologists who conclude that global warming is taking place are ‘more scientific’ (as they use more extensive methods to prove their thesis) there is reason for us to heed this warning. I do not suggest that the climatologists who don’t agree with climate change aren’t scientific. I am simply saying that it’s less probable that they are correct.
I hate to get to philosophical with this. I couldn’t resist.
The narrative concludes that the science that is used to prove the thesis of this video is the hardest of the hard science. Although the thesis that the medieval warming period is a local period of heating, which is greatly exaggerated by the critics calls attention, I stay away from it in this comment.Instead I couldn’t agree more with the fact that science should be viewed as something continuous instead of something discrete.
What makes this science hard isn’t the fact that the researchers had to go to great lengths to attain the data. It’s the fact that the research proves quite decisively it’s thesis. Science relies on proofs. However, science has been proven wrong on numerous occasions. I don’t add this to suggest either that ‘science’ is all wrong, or that science is completely correct. Instead, I suggest that extensiveness used to prove something translates to the probability of it being correct.
As the arguments raised by the climatologists who conclude that global warming is taking place are ‘more scientific’ (as they use more extensive methods to prove their thesis) there is reason for us to heed this warning. I do not suggest that the climatologists who don’t agree with climate change aren’t scientific. I am simply saying that it’s less probable that they are correct.