What IS Science And What IS NOT Science?

TEMPERATURE PROFILES FOR AN OPTIMIZED WATER VAPOR CANOPY - Vardiman
(346KB)In this paper the author states that if the solar constant was less than 25% of today's value the surface temperature under a vapor canopy would be livable. What does the author propose would cause this lowered solar constant?:
1. God - an entity for which we have no emperical evidence
2. A greater distance from the earth to the sun - a situation for which we have no empirical evidence
3. A greater concentation of dust between the earth and the sun - a situation for which we have no empirical evidence
4. The sun reflecting off of the top of the alleged vapor canopy - a situation for which we have no empirical evidenceyup lots of good science in that one.edited to add:
The Tunguska Explosion of 1908 - Austin, Brazo
I don't see any science in this one, it's just a summation of other's theories. edited: I don't even see how it's relevant to the Creationism/Evolution debate.Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

What is the authors' hypothesis in the Tunguska paper? What science is being done?The section headers of the Tunguska paper:
INTRODUCTION
Description of the Event
The Comet Theory
The Nuclear Theory
The Anti-matter Hypothesis
The Black-Hole Hypothesis
CONCLUSIONAll the authors write about is other people's idea's. They do not provide their own hypothesis. They do not propose a test for their hypothesis. All they have done is a sum up other people's ideas and say "it appears that the present consensus favors the comet hypothesis". They have not done any science.Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor