"Bob Schmall" wrote in message

Every single argument against global warming that I've seen here lacks
one thing: hard evidence.

So does the argument for global warming, where "confusion of correlation and
causation" simply, and fallaciously, replaces "hard evidence".

It's really not hard to see, providing you know what to look for and take
the time to do so, instead of gullibly believing what is fed to you as
scientific "fact" ... which it is blatantly not. AAMOF, It provably does not
even rise to the level of an "hypothesis".

One other thing of much import: Much of this "opinion" (it does not qualify
as a hypothesis or theory using proper "scientific method") is based upon
"computer modeling".

In a nutshell: guesswork in the algorithms, which are always being refined;
insufficient/dubious data, some of it previously subjected to suspect
statistical "methods" prior to input, leading to a phenomenon that has
always plagued computer modeling since Babbage, "GIGO"; and last but not
least, failure to use "scientific method", as above, and instead relying
upon statistical methods, which can be misapplied in the rush to publish.

Case in point ... the dire predictions of hurricanes last season, based
solely on computer modeling, which inarguably had no basis whatsoever in
reality. GIGO!

Be as gullible as you wish on either side of the issue, but use a better
argument than lack of "hard evidence" to assuage that gullibility ... the
point is that, as of yet, there is NONE ... for either side.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/07/07