To explain knowledge of God

[Drich]

But you're not testing to disprove your presupposition. That's the key difference. Scientists seek to remove as much ambiguity as to the nature of the phenomenon under observation as is possible. Peer review takes care of the rough edges. Only after much testing and reviewing, which often takes years, does the truth emerge.

It's exactly like your method, only backwards.

Sooo.. The 2010 'mini ice age' we all learned about in school was what exactly?

Because to me it look like some d-bag with a respected degree saw a cooling trend in the average yearly temps, put together some bogus reason and convinced a few of his buddies with respected degrees to go along with it, till it started warming up again.

So again how is this different? Because if the search for truth is the primary focus then one will quickly falsify any non-active false gods and move on, just like how we went to global warming and then to global climbate change as a safty catch all phrase to cover or explain the truth of what we have experienced.

This however does not mean there are those in our scientific communities that are not still convinced that an ice age could happen in a few short years.