Comment: Re:Relevant portion of one of the documents (Score 1) 586
by
msauve
(#39093817)
Attached to: Leaked Heartland Institute Documents Reveal Opposition To Science
"I don't think science means what you think it means.
You're saying that data, models, and research don't qualify as science?"
I know that science is something other that what you think it is. Those things can certainly be part of science, but in themselves they are not. If a religion has data, models, and research, are you willing to say it's science?
At a minimum, science requires testability (see the "scientific method"). You can theorize all you want, but unless your theories can be tested (are falsifiable), you're not doing science. AGW proponents aren't doing science.
I know that science is something other that what you think it is. Those things can certainly be part of science, but in themselves they are not. If a religion has data, models, and research, are you willing to say it's science?
At a minimum, science requires testability (see the "scientific method"). You can theorize all you want, but unless your theories can be tested (are falsifiable), you're not doing science. AGW proponents aren't doing science.