To: markomalley
The fact is that we cant account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we cant. When the facts don't fit the hypothesis, it's time to revise the hypothesis.
11 posted on
01/18/2011 5:17:56 AM PST by
exDemMom
(Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
To: exDemMom
When the facts don't fit the hypothesis, it's time to revise the hypothesis. Or in this case:
When the facts don't fit the hypothesis, it's time to revise the hypothesis facts.
12 posted on
01/18/2011 5:19:02 AM PST by
markomalley
(Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
To: exDemMom
His complaint actually addressed the lack of reliable instrumentation. He thought that if we had enough of the right kind of sensors, they would confirm his AGW. He was referring to the energy budget of the earth. Ultimately, the amount energy radiated by the earth must equal incident solar energy plus any energy released by the earth, from nuclear reactions and chemical processes. This follows from the elementary physics, tying up the details and determining the equilibrium point is messy.
16 posted on
01/18/2011 5:59:46 AM PST by
Lonesome in Massachussets
(Socialists are to economics what circle squarers are to math; undaunted by reason or derision.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson