Not exact matches
Yet I think that in spite of the knowledge that Mr. Carson displays to
illustrate his
point, he has misled his readers in the long run by suggesting that there is a clear
scientific basis for believing that we can not affect climate....
I wasn't thinking of the blogosphere, I was thinking of the TV viewers who don't, or can't wade through the
scientific arguments, but would have absorbed the tritely
illustrated points which were made every 5 minutes before the commercial break.
The modus operandi is to 1) set up the Popperish straw man of needing only one fact or observation to falsify a
scientific theory 2) find some inconsequential divergence between theory and observation (e.g. that last month was cooler than average; an extreme example to
illustrate the
point) 3) triumphantly announce that this renders the entire edifice of AGW / Darwinian theory invalid 4) imply that the alternative (sunspots / natural variability / creationism) must be correct.
They're
illustrating a
point — that a
scientific approach used in many human studies often leads to findings that are flat - out wrong.