Poetic Justice wrote:
John M. wrote:
On Jul 15, 7:13 am, Dogma wrote:
John M. wrote:
On Jul 8, 9:05 am, "Z00BN" wrote:
"John M." wrote in message
...

It seems that you don't read what you write. You still want ironclad
proof of AGW through augmenting atmospheric CO2, and you can't have
it.
ROTFLMAO
Because there is NO PROOF!
Forget about "ironclad"!!
Wow! No Zob got something right for a change. There never has been and
never will be proof in science. Proof lies in the realm of logic and
mathematics.
reproducing the experiment and obtaining the same results is proof....

Nope. It is merely verification of the result. If you see a white
rabbit on your lawn today, and then tomorrow you see another one, that
doesn't prove the proposition "all rabbits are white". More
importantly, continuing such a series of observations can NEVER prove
the proposition.

and it's also science.

That bit you got right. Earns you 50% and a Ph.D.


That was observation not a controlled experiment.... that's was
"behavioral science" which isn't science at all.

I guess you missed the 'science' in 'behavioral science'. Observation is
one method of science. There are others. Science is neither definitive
nor absolute. There is no single scientific method. See, for instance :

http://www.av8n.com/physics/scientific-methods.htm

'Economics' is not a science, behavioral science is (a science).