That's not the only thing scientifically suspect. For example, for a
very long time Dr.Gray has said that increased thermohaline
circulation caused increased hurricane intensities. I've commented on
this multiple times including on this forum. I then noted that since
THC has been going down and thus would cause hurricanes to lessen the
intensity if Dr. Gray was correct. Now, he wants it both ways that a
decrease in THC caused global warming. This turns falsifiability on
its head. Either increased THC or decreased THC confirms his theory.
The opposite much deny it. As Pim is fond of saying, this is vacuous.
(See http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw
for more details.)
On 5/31/06, George L. Murphygmurphy@raex.com <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
>
> Same song, second verse. A little bit louder and a little bit worse."
>
> One problem - certainly not the only one - with Gray's claims can be seen in
> the following paragraph of the story."
>
>
> "Gray believes in the obs. The observations. Direct measurements. Numerical
> models can't be trusted. Equation pushers with fancy computers aren't the
> equals of scientists who fly into hurricanes."
>
> Notebooks full of "direct measurements" in themselves are not adequate for
> good science. Both observational data and theories are needed, & with
> something as complex as the earth's weather system computer modelling is an
> essential part of theorizing. The fact that the writer has to ridicule
> theorists as "equation pushers with fancy computers" shows both a lack of
> understanding of how science works and an attempt to bias the reader.
>
> Shalom,
> George
>
>
> George L. Murphy
>
Received on Wed May 31 22:59:26 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed May 31 2006 - 22:59:26 EDT