Investigates things that don't conform to prediction and tries to update their models to better conform with reality..The AGW church "debunks" everything that does not conform to the doctrine.
Please show. Seriously. Some actual verifiable examples would be nice. I can quite believe this exists, some people will always be dishonest, but that still wouldn't undermine the vast majority of genuine data and analysis.It does not even shy from "Policy Based Evidence Making".
Please give me some examples of AGW being correct, I'd love to know what you consider solid and grounded.Sometimes they can be even right
Ongoing task of understanding is ongoing..but the more they have to "debunk"
Trying to understand complex things is difficult and requires adaptation to new things learnt and new understanding. Simple underlying principles may be learnt and provide an easier way to model and better predictive power but in lieu of those underlying rule you have to do the best you can to improve your models and thus, hopefully, your predictions. This isn't being dishonest, this is how you actually get somewhere with something.by creating satellite theories to why the evidence does not match the predictions,
This seems to miss the idea that you are working to create a comprehensive general idea of how something works and fails to acknowledge complexity and subtlety in something. The central thesis maybe that increased CO2 causes warming but to leave it at that without recognising everything else is unreasonable. An important driver but it doesn't lead to simple results or even necessarily make direct intuitive sense.the less plausible the main theory is.
Things should be no simpler than necessary. You can make things simpler because you would like them to be but that doesn't make them simpler in reality. I can apply the same rule, more reasonably I'd say, to the are thousands of people lying and scheming and to promote AGW or are they, just perhaps, all genuinely worried and seeing trends in their own disciplines to cause alarm. I'd say it is the second. That the other option seems reasonable seems to me to show a significant degree of paranoia, that's me though.Simple application of Ockham's rule in the exercise of the Scientific Method.
This I haven't heard but broadly speaking pushing or pulling is pretty well a matter of perspective we move according to the warping of spacetime by matter - that seems to be pretty firmly confirmed as far as we can. Unless this theory actually says something about how things would behave differently then it isn't yet useful. If it does say something different what is that and can it be tested (ever?).There was a theory in 70s that mass does not cause gravity but space has repulsive properties that mass shields from.
I'm pretty sure that has been conclusively disproved - I've not looked this up but I'm sure I've read all about this in the past. Time to freshen up perhaps.Same story with the theory that continental drift is caused by Earth expanding.
Hey, I can agree here, that are useful thought experiments at least. Helpful to remember when things aren't true too though.There are number of theories like that, and that is a good thing since they stimulate pursuit of knowledge.
Yes..It becomes dangerous though when people want to use coercion to force their point of view in form of taxation or regulation.
Though I'd point out that swings both ways and that taxation and regulation are important things in general to get right - they aren't inherently bad.
Yes, certainly can.Coercion has the opposite effect, limiting intellectual freedom and ultimately slowing down technological progress.
I mean look at the tobacoo industry, all that money spent certainly helped slow down and muddy the waters on the dangers of smoking.
That too swings both ways yes?