[Doppelganger]

[MtnGoat]

Lol this gets better and better. Doubling down on an explicit refusal to being open to revising ones thinking. Name calling over disagreement on science, dogmatic refusal to changing ideas, the judgment process provably occurring with these methods is deeply flawed There's nothing disgusting or irresponsible about standing firm on adherence to strict scientific method. It doesn't bend for your convenience. The nature and content of your criticisms, in fact, show how deeply personal the supposed science is to you, and this is exactly what scientific method is supposed to ameliorate. But this assumes one applies these methods, something totally incompatible with proud exhortations that ones mind cannot be changed. No word on Mann's honesty and your use of him as talisman/avatar, but you find time for attacks on me.

[MtnGoat]

More plausible than the notion of a beneficial trace gas controlling the climate, but alas, the official version does much better box office...ask GE, Vesta, Al Gore, and Tesla

[gb]

[MtnGoat]

You're more than welcome to show where my arguments on scientific method are false. But you can't, so you don't. It's then the attack attack show. It doesn't matter who takes me seriously when my arguments cannot be shown to to be false. They stand or fall on their own merit, which is better than filling a post with accusations you can't back up. At least you've backed off from outright claims that non falsifiable models are empirical evidence.

[Randito]

[MtnGoat]

[Randito]

[MtnGoat]

[Randito]

[MtnGoat]

Claiming they're 'alternative' without being able to show *details* of my arguments are false is merely another pronouncement. I present details within my arguments. You just say 'wrong', and think that's enough. While going on about persuading people, no less. Do you think it's persuasive to make claims without even providing any detail in substance, which supports them?

[Randito]

Perhaps you would prefer the term "non-conventional" since someone seems to have poisoned the term "alternative"

[MtnGoat]

Sure, that's better. Peer review has never been about *agreeing* with a submission's conclusions per se. In fact if you read up on the peer review process, which I did during my coffee break for some further background, you find that the idea of reviewers judging a paper's ideas with respect to how they aid or harm their own beliefs, instead of merely reviewing the practices and methods pragmatically, is considered a problem. Which is as it should be..scientific method requires openness to arguments which upset paradigms, and you don't get that if peer review is refereeing content with respect to agreement with what they believe instead of with respect to proper methods regardless of what ideas they support.

[Randito]

A good example of the scientific method in practice is the process that occurred for accepting the "mega flood" theory for about eastern Washington landforms. This theory was initially rejected by the scientific community, but after many decades of additional research and with the addition of additional researchers also supporting the theory it was accepted. The current convention wisdom on the relationship between CO2 emissions and climate has taken since the 1760s to become the dominate theory. Apparently you feel that your insights are so meritorious that they should upset the conventional wisdom based on "they can't be proven false."

[CC]