As far as I can tell, nobody in "climate science" has the foggiest clue about the Scientific Method where you have a hypothesis and you try to disprove it. In climate science, you have a hypothesis and muleishly guard it against any disproving facts, going so far as to ritually slander anybody that suggests that your beloved hypothesis is at all flawed. Then you'll go falsify data because your actual data disproves your thesis. Then you'll use political favors to cover up, lie and decieve any attempts to see your data or your hypothetical "proof".
Okay, calm down, I can see you getting all worked up, like you do with the gun debates. Take a step back from your computer, and breath for a second. Okay, good!
Anyway, that is why I wrote, "
Science may or may not be wrong." Did you notice I also put in the word "WRONG?" I put in the word "wrong" to emphasize that climate scientists may be wrong.
When I was saying there is no better method than the scientific method, I was making a GENERAL statement across the board (in all areas of science). It is the best method we have to assess the reliability and validity of scientific claims. There is currently no other method. Sure, the scientific method may lead to erroneous conclusions, but its not perfect.
It just annoys me when science changes or is false, and idiots say, "See, its wrong" and draw the conclusion that it is always wrong, or they have some other better method.
Thus, my statement still stands: It is the best method we have. It is not perfect, nor will it ever be. But there is enough evidence to suggest that the scientific method, when used appropriately, produces beneficial outcomes.
That is all I was saying. I was not speaking specifically about climate change. So, calm down, gramps.
