Re:To an alarming degree, science is not self-correcting
by pdonis on Saturday October 19, 2013 @08:08PM
(#6578470)
you feel competent enough to make statements about how climatology isn't a real science.
I didn't say climatology wasn't a real science. I said it's not an accurate enough science to justify making policy decisions with huge consequences. Plenty of other real sciences are in the same state; that's to be expected, since it's a phase every real science has to go through in order to become accurate enough.
We know about cyclical effects on longer time scales like Milankovich cycles, we understand solar variation and volcanic effects. We know about the Younger Dryas and Daansgard-Oeschger cycles. We know about shorter term oscillations like the AMO and PDO.
You apparently know nothing of any of this, and have never heard of Muller's BEST study even though it was splattered all over the New York Times a few years back. Yet, you feel competent enough to make statements about how climatology isn't a real science.
We also know about something called the Dunning-Kruger effect.