Archive for November, 2011

Trying Their Best

November 30, 2011

There are a few ideas that seem to be taking hold in the hearts and minds of the people of the United States. These ideas are powerful because they have the potential to completely change how our government works. Of course, the liberal elements of our society are deathly afraid of these ideas, and so they try to discredit them whenever they can. Since these ideas are based on logic and reason, their only options are to use logical fallacies to attack them.

The ideas that are creeping back into our society is that of individualism. The atomic element of our society is the individual. If the individual’s rights aren’t respected, then no one’s rights are. If the individual is not responsible, then no one is. You cannot have a free, independent, responsible society without free, independent, responsible individuals.

Evidence of this is found in our attitude towards charity. It used to be that government offered the individuals to handle charity on their behalf. The argument was basically, “We can do it better than you can alone, so let us do it in your behalf.” Today, we know what that has bought us: gross negligence, and even politicians who pretend to be noble while condemning the very people who fund their latest charitable government project. In fact, the money government has collected from us has gone toward the reelection campaigns of the politicians who promised to responsibly spend it. You don’t have to look very far for a politician who claims credit for the charity they are capable of doing because we willingly allow them to take our money.

Charity should be an individual expression of love between individuals. When a rich man stoops down to serve soup to the poor, a bond is formed. The rich man is humbled, and the poor man elevated. By creating an environment where different levels of our society interact, we bridge the social gap between rich and poor.

I have found in my own life when I give my own money to help the poor, that I am encouraged to make even more money so that I can help even more poor. I think charity is a more powerful motivator than greed. I imagine what good I could do if I could build a company that employs hundreds or thousands of people who would otherwise be unemployed, and I am much more motivated than I would be if I could afford a larger house, a faster car, or a bigger TV.

I will eagerly work for the day when every individual in our society knows that if they do not give, then it will not be given. I await for the day when people are motivated to work harder and harder, not so much to supply their own needs, but to ensure the needs of others are all met.

Another instance is the individual’s attitudes towards government insurance or pension programs, namely Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security. These are programs that were and always have been, and forever will be, a Ponzi Scheme. In truth, these are programs that were used to quietly collect even more tax money from the people of America. The idea was that the people were paying into a retirement account. The truth is that they would have been better off spending the money for themselves, or saving it in a bank.

My generation’s attitude towards these programs is that they will not exist when we retire, and we’d rather not continue the fraud. At some point, these programs must be phased out. Of course, we don’t want to hurt granny, and so we are more than willing to pay for granny’s mistake in trusting these government programs, but we do not want these programs to be available for us or our children.

The biggest fraud of all is the government budget. There are countless trillions we are spending that need not be spent. I am among the conservatives who feel like our national defense budget is too large, but that everything else is extremely bloated. I believe that the American citizen is not free until the national debt is eliminated and the federal government’s budget is counted in the millions, not trillions. While I do not believe we should embrace isolationism, I don’t think that we need to be the only military power in the world. Let the peaceful countries of the world maintain a military proportional to their needs, and let us form partnerships to keep the shipping lanes open and the borders free for trade among all nations.

But the spending on things that are not explicitly listed in Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution must end. Even if something is found in Article 1 Section 8, let us debate carefully and thoughtfully whether spending that money would be a net benefit to our society as a whole, and only spend on those things that are obviously of great benefit.

The Leftist’s arguments against these items is vacuous. They engage in all sorts of logical fallacies to try and convince you that these are not intelligent ideas. Let’s review some of them.

First, there’s the ad hominem. This is when the person making the argument becomes the object of discussion. For instance, to attack Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan because of the things he has done in the past. Whether or not Herman Cain is a womanizer has nothing to do with whether or not the 9-9-9 plan would be a good idea. It has everything to do with the fact that the leftist can’t build a sound argument against the 9-9-9 plan.

Next, we see ad populum, where the argument is that “everyone is doing it.” This is an absurd argument because, as we were lead to believe, “Everyone once thought the earth was flat.” and “Everyone thought the sun went around the earth.” There are things today that “everyone” believes that are simply not true, and no amount of appealing to popular opinion will change that.

Of course, there’s the chewbacca defense. This is an argument that is sneaky yet surprisingly effective. It comes from an old South Park episode where a lawyer tries to defend his client by talking about how absurd Chewbacca, a character from the Star Wars series, is! You can detect this argument when the leftist tries to talk about something completely unrelated. For instance, you might point out that the deficit under Obama is worse than any other president, and he leftist will come back with something about abortion rights, or Michelle Bachmann’s crazy beliefs.

These are only a few of the arguments I have seen used. You can identify many more if you pay careful attention.

Most of these arguments are easy to defeat. All you have to do is point our how you must be right, because your opponent cannot put together a reasonable argument, or how your opponent reverts to the basest of attacks when faced with a challenge.

Explaining Why The Greenhouse Effect Doesn’t Exist

November 29, 2011

I think I am beating a dead horse here, but it’s nice to try and summarize in a way that the lay-person can understand what the meaning of landmark scientific papers is. Like Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, the paper by Gerlich and Tscheuschner that clearly and powerfully demonstrates that the Greenhouse Effect doesn’t exist is worth summarizing again and again.

There has, to date, been no worthy rebuttal to the paper. I mention Smith’s attempt, riddled with mathematical errors and inconsistencies, not because it is worthy but because it is the only attempt I have heard of.

After recently reviewing the paper, and taking enough time to digest the finer points within it, let me try yet another attempt at summarizing it.

The summary is basically that the Greenhouse Effect, if it existed, would imply a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics or that there is a heat pump forcing heat to transfer from the atmosphere to the earth. In plainer words, the Greenhouse Effect is a perpetual machine. No one seems to notice this because all the scientific literature the authors have reviewed simply assume that the Effect exists. This was quite a chore, because there doesn’t even seem to be much agreement on what, precisely, the Greenhouse Effect is.

In the very beginning of the paper, the authors state simply and clearly what a doubling of the CO2 in the atmosphere would do based on well-understood physics and actual measurements of the things involved. They show, quite clearly, that the effect is nothing. Notice that no one dares challenge the authors on their claims in this section. The reason why is because their arguments are bulletproof.

With that out of the way, the authors try to figure out what people mean by the Greenhouse Effect. Since there are contradictory claims about what the Greenhouse Effect is, including the fact that the Greenhouse Effect has nothing at all to do with greenhouses (as scientists who claim the Greenhouse Effect exists will readily admit to), this is not an easy thing to do.

See, the word “Effect” is a specific term, just like “Theory” and “Law”. An “Effect” has three things:

  1. It is not obvious upon first glance. That is, it is surprising when it is first noticed.
  2. It is reproducible, which means you see it everywhere it might occur.
  3. It is measurable, meaning you can put numbers of how strong the effect is.
  4. It has a theoretical explanation.

Right off the bat, it’s clear that the Greenhouse Effect is not an Effect at all. In fact, the authors note that the Greenhouse Effect isn’t mentioned in any physics literature at all, except as a reference to climate science. Even then, no one dared explain the Effect with any theoretically sound explanation. This is surprising: one of the characteristics of an effect is that it has a solid theoretical explanation, and yet no one dared say what it was.

When the Greenhouse Effect has been tested by measurements, Alfred Schack showed in 1972 that it is not measurable at all. Meaning, it is an effect that has not effect at all.

The authors then go on to explain how real greenhouses work, and showing with some simple experiments how much warming you might achieve by simply interfering with normal convection currents—wind, or air moving up and down and side to side. In fact, Wood did some experiments in 1909 that proved that radiation had nothing to do with how greenhouses worked. Replacing the glass in a greenhouse with sheets of clear salt did not change how heat escaped from the warmer greenhouse.

The next section is where the authors tackle the many different and conflicting versions of the Greenhouse Effect. They carefully document 14 different Greenhouse Effects and disprove all of them using basic thermodynamics and solid theory. If someone would want to show the Greenhouse Effect to exist, they would need to do one of two things:

  1. Show that the Greenhouse Effect is not accurately reflected in any of the 14 that were documented.
  2. Show that the authors were incorrect in reasoning about any one of the 14 that were documented.

The fact that no one has attempted this shows how thorough the authors of the paper were.

Note that some of the words people use to describe the Greenhouse Effect, such as radiative forcing, radiative equilibrium, etc., are not based on physics. They are simply fabrications with nothing other than wishful thinking. If you believe these terms mean something meaningful, I kindly request you read the paper to see why they are not.

Finally, the authors drive many nails into the coffin of climate science. They do so by showing that the models climate scientists are using cannot even begin to predict the future, because the math required to solve all the necessary equations does not exist and probably never will. They show that climate simulations have never explained why they do not need to solve these complicated equations.

The authors conclude with a beautifully written summary of all the problem facing climate theories in relation to well-understood and documented physical phenomena.

In conclusion, you are witnessing a dramatic shift in climate science. With this paper standing, Climate Science cannot be considered scientific, or at least, congruent with physics. Climate Scientists peddle the same garbage that people who claim to have built perpetual machines have peddled since the beginning of time. We would be wise to ignore them, and wiser still to explain to the ignorant why they should be ignored.


Term Limits, Or Corruption in Politics

November 29, 2011

The original constitution was an ingenious piece of work. It successfully pitted three very real, and very detrimental, political artifacts against each other, in such a way that the people’s rights would be preserved. It is a great testament to the original design of our government that even today, someone like Obama finds great frustration trying to “govern” the people of our country.

However, it is clear that our system is sick and broken. I think I know why, and I know what the remedy is.

First, history and theory. There are three great inclinations people have when they consider politics. This was true a thousand years ago and is still true today. These inclinations are:

  1. Democracy. Democracy is rule of the majority. It is a very bad idea. Think back to high school, and imagine you are the unpopular kid. The popular kids see something that you have and they want, and decide to have a vote on it. Guess what? You lose. In a democracy, there is no justice.
  2. Aristocracy. Aristocracy is the rule of the privileged. It may also be called Oligarchy, rule of the few, or Plutocracy, rule of the rich, but it comes down to a small group of elite people who control the government.
  3. Autocracy. Autocracy is rule by an individual. We might call this despotism, or monarchy (although monarchy quickly devolves into aristocracy), but the point is that a single person calls the shots, and everyone defers to him.

I’ve arranged them in a sort of reverse order. The natural order seems to be that a single individual steps forward and rallies people around him and his cause. He gains somewhat of an advantage, generally through military might, but he could be a religious or a political figure. The arrangement is that people defer to him for decisions, and he enjoys a sort of autocratic power. Over time, if he is successful at gaining more followers, he becomes overburdened with the job of making decisions, and he begins to assign authority to the people he trusts that are close to him. The autocracy moves to an aristocracy. Aristocrats can do a pretty good job of ruling and keeping people happy, but eventually, they too make mistakes or find that the job is larger then their ability, and they begin to share more and more power, until you have so many people in the aristocracy that you effectively have a democracy.

Now, occasionally, you have people who rise together to power and form an aristocracy of their own. Or occasionally, you have a movement that genuinely comes from the people.

Note that there is never anyone to defend the law and justice and righteousness. The law does not speak for itself, and has no self-interest. That is, the rule of law, the hallmark of the republic, is not a natural state of affairs. It is only when your autocratic, aristocratic, or democratic leaders defer to the law that you can have a true republic.

The Founding Fathers knew that they wanted the rule of law, not men. They knew that they wanted people to always defer to the law in every decision they made. They knew that they wanted the law to be a fairly static thing, with occasional changes as needed to adapt to the times, or correct misunderstandings that propagate as languages and customs change. Of course, any change to the law would have to be done under intense scrutiny and by common consent of every interested party.

Now, here is the genius of the Founding Fathers. They gave each of the undesirable yet natural forms of government a seat in the federal government. Those individuals who could amass vast amounts of political support would naturally gravitate to the presidency, and enjoy the powers of the executive branch. Those people who arose into a ruling class by riches or by political connections would find their easiest way to power would be through the senate. Originally, the senators were appointed by the state legislatures. The sentiment of the people would be represented as best as possible in the house, where the representatives would, of necessity, be answerable to the passions of the people in their districts with a biennial election.

The result of pitting these three natural governments against each other, in the way that emphasized their positive aspects, but negated their worst, gave rise to the system of government found in the constitution. Had we applied the constitution verbatim, we would enjoy the same effects they had back then.

Namely, the presidential office would be the only place charismatic and autocratic leaders would find desirable. It would be a competition of personalities to get into the president’s seat. The path to election lies through the electoral college, which originally was appointed by the state legislatures, not the people. There, the electoral college would crown a new king over America every four years; not a king in full power, but the closest thing we have to a king. This king, of course, could only do the things we wanted kings to do, such as fight our wars and lead the nation in times of crises, and none of the things we wished kings would not do.

The aristocrats among us, the rich and powerful, would find their most desirable seat in the senate. There, political corruption would be rampant. The senate would be full of the political aristocracy, making backroom deals between the democratic and autocratic elements of our government. The best parts of the aristocracy—their ability to make wise, long-term decisions, their ability to bring competing elements to the negotiation table, their ability to make every a little happy, would be preserved in their role, while the worst parts, their ability to squeeze the taxpayer dry, and afford every privilege to themselves and no other, would be limited.

The democratic elements of our society would find their most desirable seat in the house. There is no easier way to get into government than through the house, and no easier way to get elected to the house than to play on the people’s passions. There, the house would be a near anarchic revolution in continual motion, continually attempting to trample on the principles of a free society and on the rights of the privileged, but at the same time, give a very real and very powerful voice to the commoner.

Had we preserved that form of government, then our society would look dramatically different. Let me list the ways.

First, the House of Representatives:

  • The only federal office you would vote for would be your representative. That means, if you like the direction the country is headed, you re-elect your representative. If you don’t, you elect someone else. This vote occurs, of course, every 2 years.
  • There would be 1 representative for every 30,000 people. That works out to 10,292 people today.
  • Obviously, you’d have the 10,000 house members quickly forming caucuses to get their causes to move forward. These would likely be very ephemeral, meaning, some representatives may belong to several caucuses, and caucuses that were popular two years ago would disappear.
  • You would likely know your representative, personally, and would freely express to him your dissatisfaction with his job.
  • The House of Representatives would be full of fiery, impatient young politicians, people who probably wouldn’t even think of making politics their life’s career. (What is the chance that you’d be one of the lucky 100 among the 10,000 to be appointed to the senate?)
  • Trying to buy seats in the house would be all but impossible. You’d have to find thousands of people to run on your ticket, and you’d have to spend hundreds of millions to advertise for them effectively. Even then, what good is advertising when people already know the guy?
  • Political movements would either make a broad, democratic appeal for their cause, or ignore the House altogether.

Next, let’s look at the senate:

  • Senators would not be elected, but appointed, by the state governments, every 6 years.
  • Senators would not even think of appealing to the common people for support. In fact, they would probably hold the house and the people in disdain.
  • The senate would thus be full of career politicians, people who have made a career out of government, law, and politics.
  • Trying to buy the senate would be relatively easy. All you have to do is grease the right palms, promise the right favors, and you could gain control of the senate for your issue. The implication of this is that all the corruption would be focused in the senate. People would know that everything the senate does is tainted with the corruption of aristocracy.
  • The only way the senate could get popular support for what it does is to defer to the constitution. (I think this is a subtle but very important point!) Let me explain this a bit further. Say the senate came out and said, “We need to spend $500M on a new missile system.” Your first inclination is, “No way! You’re simply paying off your supporters and friends.” The senate would have to say, “We have a constitutional duty to protect the people. We need this $500M to defend the people.” For an understanding of what I mean, look at how European governments relate to their people, justifying everything they do without referring to popular support at all.
  • However, the senators would be vastly more educated on the law than the House. They would understand that the law protects them from the passions of the people, but it also tempers the passions of the people.

Now, the president:

  • You wouldn’t vote for president.
  • Your opinion on who should be president wouldn’t matter.
  • You won’t be involved in presidential politics.
  • The electoral college would consist of 10,392 people, each meeting in the capitols of 50 states, all on the same day.
  • Just as it is all but impossible for one political interest to buy the house, it would be equally impossible to buy the electoral college.
  • The electoral college would come together, probably with an idea of 6 or 7 people they would like to see as president, and each would have to independently decide on who is best.
  • Note that the electoral college may be composed of former representatives and senators, but not current ones.
  • In the rare case that the electoral college cannot choose a president, the house would have to choose the president from among those who received votes.
  • The president would be accountable only to God, not unlike the English kings.
  • If the president did do something really awful, then the house would impeach (requiring 1/2 of 10,292 plus one) and the senate would try.
  • Ask yourself: what would it take to get 5,148 representatives to vote for impeachment? A massive abuse of power that affects the common man.

Notice that this form of government is clearly anti-democratic. It is also anti-autocratic and anti-aristocratic. It recognizes that there are strengths to these forms of government, but also recognizes the weaknesses.

Now, let’s examine the way our government is today.

  • The president, the senate, and the house is chosen by the vote of the people.
  • No one knows their representative, since we have 1 representative representing around 700,000 people.
  • The House of Representative is a house of aristocrats, because it is relatively easy to buy 435 elections, especially when no one knows the person they are voting for.
  • The senate is also a house of aristocrats, but aristocrats who can claim the veil of democratic appeal.
  • The president ends up being a party man, because he must gain popular support to win, and that is only available if he align himself with the parties that already control the house and senate.
  • Really, we have a government of two competing aristocratic democracies. The true centers of power are the Republican and Democratic Parties. We know this is true because both the Occupy Movement and the TEA Party’s principle goals are to take over the parties. 3rd parties work within the framework of the first 2 parties.

Ask yourself, “Would I rather live in our system of two competing aristocratic democracies, or would I rather live in the system the Founding Fathers laid out?”

I would prefer the former, even though it means I don’t get to vote for president or my senator.

The parties would all but be eliminated. The political system of the house would be so different than the political systems for the senate and the president that they would bear little resemblance. Can you imagine the groups who control the corrupt aristocracy of the senate even trying to corroborate with the true democracy the house represents? I cannot imagine a political group who gains power over the senate capable of gaining popular support at the same time.

Even if they did, how would they maintain order when their representatives are constantly changing, and are loyal to their neighborhoods?

We don’t need term limits. We need the original constitution.


Examining Climate Science, Again

November 10, 2011

One of the mental games I like to play is called, “Let’s pretend I’m stupid.”

It works like this. Take something I already know, or at least, think I know, and then try to disprove it. If I can’t at least come up with several good arguments against it, then I’m not playing hard enough.

The process of evaluating things with logic and reason is challenging, to say the least. It exposes whatever biases I have, uncovers new facets of my ignorance, and causes me to question some very basic things I hold dear. In the process, I have to relearn things I’ve forgotten, and go back to a more primitive state.

One of the most exciting feelings I have ever had is the feeling of doubt. That is, “Can I actually pull it off? Can I really go back and demonstrate a clear enough understanding of this subject that I can honestly continue to believe in the thing I already knew?”

There are only two possible outcomes of the exercise. Either my knowledge is confirmed, or it is exposed as incorrect. Whenever it is exposed as incorrect, it is hopefully replaced with better, more accurate knowledge.

In the end, it helps me be a better teacher, and keeps my mind sharp.

I’ve lately re-examined the science behind climate science. (I apologize that I’ve allowed the language of these papers to change my usual writing style.) I’ve exposed myself to countless arguments against the things I’ve already learned. I’ve uncovered a few interesting bits of knowledge, or at least a renewed enthusiasm for principles I already know.

First is the solid foundation of basic physics and logical rigor. I have long ago developed a sixth sense that informs me when someone isn’t using sound logic. I love talking with mathematicians and theoretical physicists because every thing they say follows this rigor. Their knowledge has been honed by the very exercise I have done over decades and decades, and further polished by communication within their field.

We can trust science, at least real science, as long as it is based on plain observations and rigorous logic.

There is another aspect of science, the seedy side of science. Scientists being fallible people, they are prone to mistakes. Mathematicians and physicists are well aware of this, which is why their immediate instinct is to distrust their own results. If they can find problems with their work, then they’ll fix it before publication. After publication, they have to acknowledge any errors they made. The reason for publication is to get others to look at it closely and help find the errors.

However, certain scientists don’t behave this way. Rather than take on this attitude, they try instead to build themselves up as the next Einstein or they try to manipulate the science to get a desired result. These people are pretty easy to find, when you know what to look for. Every one of the vocal advocates of Global Warming reek of this attitude. The so-called “ClimateGate” emails have revealed it for all the world to see. The sham of a cover-up that was done makes the scientists look even more foolish. The amount of credibility these scientists have is exactly zero in my mind.

Nevertheless, it shouldn’t be hard to falsify their claims. After all, science doesn’t depend on who’s making the claim, but the claim itself.

Examining the claims of Global Warming I see self-contradictions, contradictions between scientists, and ultimately, contradictions with nature itself.

Over at this blog post, the most fundamental aspects of Global Warming have been thoroughly examined, and found to be sorely lacking. If you want to understand, you have to read the 3 papers mentioned. If you don’t have the patience or the ability, then there are lay-persons explanations of the 3 papers. To date, there is no rebuttal to the original paper that has any weight at all. I have read hundreds upon hundreds of arguments against the original paper. Only a few actually acknowledge the ideas presented in the paper, and they fail in rebutting them. The rest are vacuous statements made in complete ignorance of the topics addressed in the paper.

All the other arguments for or against Global Warming end up being meaningless after the publication of the above paper. No number of ice cores or tree rings or satellite imaging or contemplation of Venus or Mars or hurricanes or whatnot has any bearing on the discussion. The entire field has been leveled, because none of it matches with the first principles of physics.

I am sure that the temperature changes over time. After all, it is generally warmer in the daytime than in the nighttime. I am sure that there are changes in the weather, because I see it. I am sure that the climate changes as well, because we read about it in history books. What we cannot be certain of, and what the paper marvelously exposes, is the repercussions of these changes and variations. These fall within a realm of physics and math where you have to throw up your hands and say, “We do not know. We cannot know.”

You can safely assume that anyone who claims to know anything definitive about the weather and climate is an idiot who can’t do basic math or physics. Either that, or they are an all-powerful being with knowledge and power far beyond our own.

Note that meteorologists, the ones we rely on every day, do not claim certain knowledge. Their field is based on statistics and some general principles, principles which may be based on some first principles of physics. The further in the future they look, the less and less likely their predictions are to come true. Certainly no meteorologist would even pretend to know what the weather will be like a year from now.

Why, then, do these climate scientists persist? There are only two reasons, really. One is ignorance, the other is greed. If they are ignorant, then the solution is educate them and others. Perhaps one day we’ll teach the full story of thermodynamics to 2nd Graders, and it will be as common knowledge as Newton’s 3 Laws, but that day is not today. It is incumbent upon us who do know the 2nd Law to be so well versed in it that we can explain it to children in a scientifically rigorous way.

On their greed, well, we all struggle with greed. When we see it cloud people’s judgments, the solution is to pay it no heed. We certainly shouldn’t fuel it by funding it with public money.

Those who claim that Climate Science is real in any way are not only foolish, they are wrong. It’s ok for people who don’t know any better to do so. We can educate and correct any misstatements they make, and after a while, they’ll come to agree with us. Those who know better, or who remain close-minded to the possibility that they are wrong, can only be ignored. We cannot convince someone who has set their thoughts in stone.

Why I Believe Cain Over His Accusers

November 9, 2011

Here, someone charges that Herman Cain’s website called one of his accuser an ugly female dog.

Except, it isn’t true. The entire website was made up either as some kind of parody or a plant.

People on the left are genuinely scared of Herman Cain. If he does become the president, things will change in a big way, the same way they changed under Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln. They are willing to lie, cheat, and steal to make sure he never gets nominated and never becomes president.

Even if it turns out that I was wrong, and Herman Cain did sexually harass some women, I would still choose him as president over anyone the left chooses.

The Null Hypothesis and Global Warming

November 4, 2011

The Reference Frame points out an interesting article about the Null Hypothesis and Climate Change.

For those who don’t know, the Null Hypothesis is a way to run experiments and generate meaningful results. It starts with a simple statement that can be easily disproven, the Null Hypothesis. Then you collect your data, and you evaluate what the probability of the Null Hypothesis being true is, given the data.

As an example, consider the Null Hypothesis “this coin is fair”. If you flip the coin 5 times, and you get 5 heads in a row, then you note that the probability of getting a run of 5 heads with a fair coin is 6%, so the Null Hypothesis is only 6% likely to be true.

It’s important to note that you can’t ever really rule out a Null Hypothesis, unless it is stated in terms of absolutes. In our coin example, there is still a tiny change the Null Hypothesis is true, even if you flip the coin a thousand times and get heads every time. However, the chance of the Null Hypothesis being true in such a case is very, very small. Conversely, you can never really show a Null Hypothesis to be true, unless it is stated in terms of absolutes.

What does this have to do with Climate Change or Global Warming?

In the article I cited above, one scientist says, “The Null Hypothesis should be that Global Warming is true.” Another scientist says, “No, it shouldn’t be, and Null Hypothesis are pointless anyway.” A third person, a mathematical physicist says, “You’re both wrong.”, and goes on to say that the Null Hypotheses (plural here–multiple hypothesis-es) that have been proposed in the past have never been shown to be wrong.

Of course, the Reference Frame goes on to point the silliness about the whole thing with basic and clear science and observations.

To date, I haven’t seen many Null Hypothesis that even survive the laugh test from climate science. I certainly haven’t seen many genuine experiments.