Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
It is hard evidence.
|
Nope. Adding up a bunch of assumption is NOT evidence, never mind hard evidence.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
Your disagreement with it was "if you accept their interpretation of things which are in no way hard/fast proof", but I didn't say it was *proof*,
|
My disagreement is with you calling it hard evidence when it's nothing more than a whole bunch of science,
for which there is no proof, being considered as hard evidence.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
I said it was "evidence", which is a different matter.
|
Splitting hairs, as usual.
Try that in court - "No m'lud. The Police cannot
prove I committed the crime, they only have
evidence that I did."
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
|
I suppose it depends on where you get your definition from:
Quote:
|
Usage Note: The meaning of disingenuous has been shifting about lately, as if people are unsure of its proper meaning.
|
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disingenuous
Like I said, not very precise.
But, if we take your definition, then I have to refute the allegation.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
You are bringing in an unrelated point about it being impossible to predict local weather conditions and attempting to apply this to a global situation which does not deal in short term situations, but long term trends and thereby trying to dismiss the evidence we have for the latter.
|
It is NOT unrelated. It is quite clear that
meteorologists have trouble understanding how the weather works as it is.
Just because there are some long-term trends, doesn't mean that they can linearly extrapolate and assume things will carry on as they have - particularly when the data they're relying on really only covers a fraction of the timescale that matters.
So, perhaps predicting tomorrow's weather isn't the same 'problem' as trying to figure out what the overall world climate has been doing for the last 1000 years and is planning to do for the next 1000 years.
But, considering that they often fail to predict tomorrow's weather with all the scientific facts at their disposal, I can't see how we can really accept the global climate predictions any better, considering that those are based on nothing more than "a lot of suggestions add up to something".
Anyway, that's all the hair-splitting I'm going to do on this topic.