So I said it was
worth testing this hypothesis out.
Not exact matches
Since I'm not one of those who believes
testing it is
worth lifting a finger for, I'm not really the one to provide it, but I note that the world is not short of those who think otherwise, and who can be relied upon to supply all manner of metrication with their catastrophic alternative
hypotheses — polar bears melting, ice - caps dying out, models that project soaring temperatures — you know the sort of thing.
Ultimately, carping on about Exxon - funded scientists only serves to undermine the
worth of all that
hypothesis testing, peer review and replication.
Since there was already enough evidence to suggest the
hypothesis of global warming was
worth studying, this
test is free of the problem of data mining (or, more pejoratively, cherry picking) evident in virtually everything done on the anti-science side of the debate.
Suffice it to say that this is not a «crackpot
hypothesis», so that it is
worth publishing and
testing empirically.