"You are not being very scientific here, you seem to be accepting RL’s “back of the envelope“ calculations without any proof that those calculations are correct."
I may accept that RL's calculation are correct- and I generally find that they are. But even RL thought that doing such calculations were not necessary, and in this I concur.
"What proof do you have that my claims are inaccurate?"
It's my judgment. And it's not my task to disprove your ideas. That is the way science works.
Let me ask you a more important question what evidence could disprove your ideas?
Let me give you an example, the wackos who believe in "global warming" have a theory which is disprovable: If Global CO2 levels rise, than global temperature must go up. If over a long enough period [such as 10-20 years] if CO2 rises [significantly] and if global temperature decreases [significantly] than that indicates that their theory is wrong. This isn't the only way to disprove the theory of Global warming, but this "proves" it is at least falsifiable to some extent:)
Flame » in reply to re: Lordy! Lordy!
re: Lordy! Lordy!
The whole thread (37 posts)
- A snippet for Johannes
- re:Interesting, Thank you alcaray