You err in referencing global warming climatology as a "science" for in reality it is a pseudoscience that is dressed up to look like a science by an application of the Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness by the argument made by a United Nations IPCC climate model under which an "abstract" event of the future for Earth's climate system is mistaken for a "concrete" event of the future for this system, where an "abstract" event of the future is "abstracted" (removed) from a location in space and time whereas a "concrete" event of the future has such a location. While a collection of "concrete" events of the future
is an example of a "statistical population,," a collection of "abstract" events of the future is not.
Consequently, the hypothesis of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is not susceptible to being tested. Hypothesis testing is, however, the mark of an investigation that is "scientific" in nature.
Dear Mr. Epstein:
You err in referencing global warming climatology as a "science" for in reality it is a pseudoscience that is dressed up to look like a science by an application of the Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness by the argument made by a United Nations IPCC climate model under which an "abstract" event of the future for Earth's climate system is mistaken for a "concrete" event of the future for this system, where an "abstract" event of the future is "abstracted" (removed) from a location in space and time whereas a "concrete" event of the future has such a location. While a collection of "concrete" events of the future
is an example of a "statistical population,," a collection of "abstract" events of the future is not.
Consequently, the hypothesis of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is not susceptible to being tested. Hypothesis testing is, however, the mark of an investigation that is "scientific" in nature.
Cordially,
Terry Oldberg
Engineer/Scientist/Public Policy Researcher
Los Altos Hills, CA USA
1-650-941-0533
terry_oldberg@yahoo.com