There is no place for assumptions in science: it must be absolutely and flawlessly unbiased.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

All science is built upon assumptions, if you feel that you can't trust things that are designed on scientific assumption, than you can throw out just about every piece of technology that you have and go omish. Science uses the model that best fits and seems the most accurate, whether it is right or not.

__________________
Set your destination with your heart, get there with your mind.

"The wisest men follow their own direction." - Euripides

Chan obviously doesn't seem to know how science works. He's confusing logic and math, which work in proofs with science, which doesn't.

__________________

It's an average temperature increase. Across the entire globe. That average has no bearing whatever on any given individual place. You and Bill Gates probably have an average worth of like 45 billion, but that doesn't mean you both have 45 billion dollars.

__________________
"Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states...Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds."



~Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

So, the average temperature of the earth has been increasing since the last Ice Age..

But in fact during the past 5 years the average temperature of the earth has decreased...

So how does that prove that Man caused it?

What happens when one applied the current data to the previous hypothetical models, they don't match? e.g., when the test predictions compared to current observations, don't match?

Do we just say that we were correct all along and continue along with the original prediction or modify the prediction to meet the current observations?

Any system that purports to be the sole arbiter of reality, truth or whatever you want to call it (as science does - Ever notice how its worshipers keep insisting that in any discussion evidence must be "scientific"?) must be absolutely unbiased and flawless. It is not entitled to a priori assumptions; it must approach everything without any assumptions whatsoever. Otherwise, it is no more valid than mythology.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

Mythology is all this hoax is all about.. that is besides another excuse for increasing the size of government and stealing more money away from the people. AND having the power to regulate the air that we breathe.. which is totally evil and tyrannical.

You really can't argue with an imbecile who denies the primacy and validity of science. That really ends the discussion right now. Chan obviously is one of those voodoo mysticism mumbo jumbo religious wackos who thinks all thought paradigms are equal.

__________________

So who are you blaming..? you should be blaming yourself because you obviously have not looked at the data.. only blathering on in lock step with the current Democrat party agenda..

Hey, When was the Democrat party (or any Political party for that matter) ever concerned about science?

The data do not support the party's agenda...