Global warming seems to be a case for multiple working hypotheses. 'With this method the danger of parental affection for a favorite theory can be circumvented' (Chamberlin). Parental affection for man-made, CO2-induced global warming explains the uncritical acceptance of any corroborating 'evidence' as in the case of the Himalaya glaciers. Shouldn't one rather look for deviant cases? The time-honored principles of falsifiability and falsification do not seem to hold for the work of IPCC.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten