Does this argument really work?

Tim Lambert, responding to this opinion piece ((why in the deuce is science being argued in the opinion pages!)), says:

If the hot spot really is missing is does not prove that CO2 is not causing warming, but it would indicate something wrong with the models. (Which might mean that things are worse than what the models predict.)

That parenthetical kills me. Somebody should try it in a macro seminar. “No my model doesn’t show the characteristic hump shaped inflation response, but this means my model is wrong. The correct model might make my conclusion even stronger!”

But what really pisses me off about the piece is its title. Yeah, yeah, I know its a blog post, but its a blog post at “Scienceblogs” which I would expect to be more scientific-y or something. Anyway, how is a facts-driven, plausible sounding critical review a “war on science”?

In the backwoods where I’m from, facts-driven plausible sounding stories are science.

Comments are closed.