Excargodog

You appear to have a comprehension problem. What I said was that the methodology of much of the historical baseline - calculating annual temperatures based upon the growth intervals as determined by the rings of trees - had a large signal to noise ratio. It’s not that the model demonstrates a small magnitude difference, it is that the correlation of the THING BEING MEASURED ( size of growth ring) to ITEM OF INTEREST (mean yearly temperature) is not high even now, and we have no reliable way whatever of ascertaining what it was then.

As I said, the signal to noise ratio is not particularly good, either to prove or to disprove the hypothesis.

And no, I’d consider evolution to be an honest to God (pun intended) theory. There are many short lived life forms like bacteria where we can witness the effects and tinker with it. For that matter, there are natural experiments. The Malpais in New Mexico are the result of a lava flow only About 5000 years ago yet the desert animals in the area have evolved their coloring to match the distinctive lava flow as protective camouflage from predation. We can infer (although not definitively prove) that those who had a more lava like appearance got eaten by other critters at a lesser rate than those who did not. Conversely, a couple hundred miles south, the same species in the White Sands area are - wait for it - white, presumably for the same reason.

Those of you who claim to believe in the process of science really do need to stop assuming anyone who legitimately retains a degree of skepticism from your orthodoxy is some sort of uneducated hick or religious nut.

The process of scientific research is the null hypothesis, that you should be SKEPTICAL of theories, not that they become your own personal dogma. Until alternative hypotheses - including the null hypothesis - have been statistically eliminated, one should keep an open mind.

https://newonlinecourses.science.psu...t502/node/139/