.1% variance? Wow sounds like something one shouldn’t focus on to make important conclusions. There is a need for clarity here – people love making topics more complicated than they really are. For example, should we be able to:
1) calculate the surface area of the sun
2) take the most conservative estimate of currents we’ve measured near the sun
3) extrapolate an estimate that everyone is happy with showing how much electricity the sun could actually be receiving…?
These closely related theories – or hypotheses – could probably benefit by some good naming schemes so novices can distinguish them. Distinctness is part of marketing – and growing a scientific paradigm probably does require some marketing!
