In the field of climate change there have been no shortage of ad hoc «saving hypotheses»; however, according to Occam, «plurality should not be posited without necessity,» and, as with
the Ptolemaic epicycles, that is precisely what the climate scientists are doing.
When observations failed to disclose such circular orbits, they retained their notions of essential order by supposing that the movements could be analyzed in terms of
the Ptolemaic epicycles, i.e., circles on top of circles.
A single
Ptolemaic epicycle might be a very simple explanation for a pattern in astronomy, but that doesn't make it better than a more complex Newtonian gravitational interaction.
Not exact matches
Ptolemaic astronomy went on adding planetary
epicycles to remove discrepancies; defenders of the phlogiston theory were driven to postulate negative chemical weights in order to maintain their paradigm.
Seriously, isn't all this work on aerosols roughly equivalent to trying to plug in yet more
epicycles to make the
Ptolemaic model of the universe continue to work?
Or will you opt for the
Ptolemaic approach of adding
epicycles within
epicycles?
reminiscent of the medieval theologians arguments about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin... or the ever more complicated
epicycles of the
ptolemaic astronomers....
My question would be whether the «confounding factors» are a real possibility, or whether they have a role akin to that of
epicycles in
Ptolemaic astronomy, i.e. function to keep alive a hypothesis that has become a dogma.
The continuing adjustments are more like adding
epicycles to make
Ptolemaic cycles fit the planets» orbits....
The continuing adjustments are more like adding
epicycles to make
Ptolemaic cycles fit the plants» orbits; what we need is to discover the relevant «hyperbola» (sadly, we've got way too much hyperbole!).