The «failure of the Right's bogeymen'to «create hysteria» I attribute to the failures of the global warming fraternity to present us (i.e. the general public) with a coherent, plausible and
scientifically valid hypothesis that is robust and has real value.
Your personal opinion on whether something constitutes «
a scientifically valid hypothesis» are as crucial to the scientific enterprise as wheels on honey - bees.
If you CAN NOT tell me how it could be falsified and CAN NOT provide these data, I'll take it that this is simply because this is not
a scientifically valid hypothesis.
Not exact matches
The CAGW
hypothesis is
scientifically invalid, so they «pretend» that it is
valid.
These myths vary from logical fallacies to pseudoscience to poor math to
scientifically valid but disproved
hypotheses.
We shouldn't hand - pick our data to support or deny any particular
hypothesis unless we can show that there's a
scientifically valid reason for doing so.