Slashdot Mirror

The lack of certain observations excludes all hypotheses except one? How does a lack of observations exclude these hypotheses exactly?

Well, taken as a mickey mouse example, "all swans are white", means any observation of a non-white swan excludes the hypothesis. The *lack* of any non-white swans observed (after looking really hard for them), clearly excludes competing hypotheses like "there are black swans" or "there are brown swans", or any of the varied hypotheses of that sort.

In the case of AGW, the obvious ones you'd have to exclude are solar influence, ocean heat influence - but the larger "natural climate change" is particularly difficult to exclude. Thus far, no observations of weather or climate have ever been inconsistent with the null hypothesis of natural climate change. Ever.

A few highly successful predictions from climate scientists don't prove AGW either, but neither can you show it's "not science" by claiming it isn't falsifiable, when it most obviously is.

Being naively falsifiable is not the same has having a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis. Yes, if humans don't exist, that would falsify AGW - but the mere existence of humans doesn't mean AGW must be true (nor does it even imply it).

Of the two requirements for the scientific method, it is absolutely correct to say that #2 is the hardest and most difficult to understand:

1) a list of observations that would invalidate your hypothesis;

2) an argument that the lack of these observations would exclude all other hypotheses, including the null.

For further reference: http://stephenjaygould.org/ctr...

That's not much of an argument :)

Here's perhaps some material that will help you understand the concept of falsifiability and the demarcation problem: http://stephenjaygould.org/ctr...

Have a read, and see if that helps you understand what I'm getting at.

"super-natural" is a buzzword - the real criteria for science is falsifiability.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org...

No form of "creationism" I've ever been presented with has had a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, but I'm welcome to hear one if you think you have one.

Not at all. In fact "it happens" (in terms of the globe warming over any given period of time), could very well be 100% natural, so the trick with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis is that you need to *exclude* the natural explanation (not simply wish it away).

So you're basically stating it's impossible for science to determine whether pumping CO2 into the atmosphere will make the earth warmer.

Sadly, though Asimov was a great writer, he wasn't much of a scientist :) Arguably, he was a luddite, but I still love his prose.

Funny how instead of addressing the argument you use an ad hominem against Issac Asimov.

And the first step of science, its very cornerstone, that which it cannot do without, is falsifiability.

Without falsifiability, no amount of critical reasoning can work - the lack of falsifiability *precludes* the discovery of truth, because observations have no meaning - when *any* observation can be "explained" by a hypothesis, it ceases to be science.

Popper, again for your reference: http://www.stephenjaygould.org...

Ok.

Explain to me why evolution is science and AGW isn't.

Which brings us back to the fact the only hypothesis you'd accept is impossible to falsify until it happens.

Not at all. In fact "it happens" (in terms of the globe warming over any given period of time), could very well be 100% natural, so the trick with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis is that you need to *exclude* the natural explanation (not simply wish it away).

Did you miss the point of the Asimov essay?

Sadly, though Asimov was a great writer, he wasn't much of a scientist :) Arguably, he was a luddite, but I still love his prose.

I can insist AGW is scientific because a single "necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW" is not feasible.

The fact that such a grand hypothesis is infeasible is a clue that like the grand hypothesis of astrology, it isn't scientific :)

The scientific method is basically a system of critical evidence based reasoning.

And the first step of science, its very cornerstone, that which it cannot do without, is falsifiability.

Without falsifiability, no amount of critical reasoning can work - the lack of falsifiability *precludes* the discovery of truth, because observations have no meaning - when *any* observation can be "explained" by a hypothesis, it ceases to be science.

Popper, again for your reference: http://www.stephenjaygould.org...

The basic concept of AGW is simple, more CO2 in the atmosphere means more trapped heat, at a certain point this causes secondary factors to kick in and trap even more heat,

And exactly what observations would show that in fact, CO2 doesn't drive secondary factors, or that CO2 drivers are overwhelmed by natural variations?

Furthermore, logically explain how the *lack* of those observations leaves us *only* with human CO2 as the culprit.

You've already admitted the complexity and uncertainty of the climate system - the fact that you would believe such a simple formulation is contradictory to the points you've already conceded to.

Does CO2 do what we'd expect? Yes. Does the atmosphere emit radiation the way we'd expect? Yes. Is the atmosphere warming as we expect? Yes. Is it warming at the precise rate we expect? Not quite. Is the ice melting as we expect? Mostly.

I refer you to Feynman again - it isn't about *expectations*. The fact that CO2, and atmospheric emissions of radiation, and warming, and rates of warming, and ice melting could all *also* be due to natural variation means we haven't yet covered our foundational responsibility of the scientific method, falsifiability. Lots of things are "consistent with" or "expected" by astrology - that doesn't make it science.

Instead your line of reasoning seems to be. We can't easily test it, therefore all the science is junk, therefore it isn't happening!

No, my line of reasoning is this - we can't tell through observation whether or not our hypothesis is true or not (because *all* observations are "consistent with" our hypothesis), therefore, the hypothesis isn't scientific.

The tests don't have to be *easy* - they could be horribly complex, requiring all kinds of satellite technology, or radiocarbon dating, or intense data collection. However, the *must* exist.

You'll respond, "well, i've got lots of little tests!", but then make the clever, but unconvincing, claim that any little test that fails isn't enough to invalidate your central conceit. Much like an astrologist making 365 predictions in a year, and claiming that *all 365* must be wrong for his central conceit to be wrong.

Science is science, and it requires falsifiability, regardless of how difficult that bar is. Hunches, gu

Nope. unless that religion is called common sense.

So it's common sense to hold onto a belief even if observations contradict it? :)

I'm simply advocating that we reduce risk by not blindly ignoring what 96% of the worlds foremost experts are telling us is a real threat, That is enough of a significant number that anyone should take seriously.

So if 96% of the world's theologians tell you gay marriage is a real threat, we should take that seriously? :)

Science is not consensus :)

I'm not sure how you an accuse me of having religion when you clearly have most bizarre blind faith that totally destroying the environment will somehow magically have no more inconvenient effect on humans than that of an infected pinky finger.

CO2 is not totally destroying the environment :) Neither is a small increase in global average temperature - just take a look at say, population and crop yields from 2014 compared to 1914 when the world was cooler - how exactly do you measure harm during that interval if we've reduced disease, death and poverty in that interval?

You're simply practicing another version of an apocalyptic religion, dressed up in lab coats instead of priest collars :)

What about the billions that will starve when we can't grow crops anymore, or those that will die directly from entire regions being hit hard with VERY extreme weather patterns?

Blaming weather on CO2 emissions is like blaming droughts on gods of the harvest who are angry :)

You want to grow crops better? Thank the Haber process. Thank cheap energy.

You wrap yourself in this cloak of righteousness, like some zealot of the Catholic church in the 17th century, and expect us to simply take for granted that your *massive* promise of harm is outweighed by some completely imaginary set of catastrophes unobserved in the data.

Want to play science? Want to lose your religion? Start off with the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement - that's the first step of the scientific process. It doesn't start with a poll of experts, or a voice vote of consensus - it starts with *falsifiability*.

Be honest, did you read this article? http://www.stephenjaygould.org...

Any small benefit from this will be massively outweighed by the droughts and other negative changes in weather patterns.

That's an unsupported assertion, contradicted by the evidence of ever increasing crop yields along with higher CO2 and temperature globally.

Do seriously think that the size of someone's electricity bill will be whats uppermost on poor peoples minds

Yes. Power costs drive food costs and water costs. Make the electricity more expensive, and you condemn people in poverty to more poverty.

Even a few minutes with Google will show that over 95% of the most prestigious academic and independent research (as opposed to that performed or funded by entities with vested interests) strongly indicates man is having a direct and major bad effect on global warming. Why do you refuse to acknowledge that?

Science is not done by consensus, surely Galileo taught you that :)

The root of your argument just seem to be that if there's even a slight possibility of doubt that global warming (or that humans are at least partially responsible for it ) exists, then you will magically translate that into the whole thing being necessarily not true.

No, you've completely misunderstood falsifiability - it isn't about what *percent* something is possible to be wrong, it is about whether or not there is any logical argument that it *can* be wrong at all.

The root of your argument is that "heads I win, tails you lose" is a fair bet :)

Here, read some Popper to educate yourself on falsifiability and then get back to me :)

http://www.stephenjaygould.org...

You do realize that I'm simply explaining to you the difference between a trivial falsification and a non-trivial falsification, right?

Oh yes, I do get that, and I'm trying to point out that you are making stuff up.

Put that aside...

What don't you understand about the idea of a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis? If your falsification criteria could be used to support multiple hypotheses, how would you discern which one is true? Don't you understand the need to be specific to your favored hypothesis?

The whole *point* of Karl Popper's explanation of this basic principle of the scientific method is to derive knowledge from *exclusion* - is there some reason why he's confused you? Start here:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org...

So, let's see, going on sixteen posts now, still waiting for answers to the questions:

What specific measure of climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 would you consider a falsification of AGW and CAGW?

What argument do you have to exclude a small increase in climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 from your initial falsification criteria?

The fact that your critiques of me continue to fail to include any sort of answer to the question is very telling, don't you think? :)

“I want to put on the table, not why 85% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences reject God, I want to know why 15% of the National Academy don’t.” Neil deGrasse Tyson http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

There's actually evidence for this sort of claim. For example the majority of American scientists are atheists or agnostics, and over the numbers for members of the National Academy of Science are even higher. See http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html. There's other data that suggests a similar pattern in terms of education. The GSS data shows that more educated people are less likely to believe in God. Curiously, there is evidence that people who don't self-identify as atheist or agnostic but don't identify as religious (e.g. "spiritual but not religious" or believe in God but no particular religion, or just don't care, etc.) know less about religion than most other groups, even as atheists and agnostics are some of the highest knowledge groups. See http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey/.

Why do they need such a "statement" anyway.

Because without a falsifiable hypothesis statement, you can observe *anything*, and insist that you're still right. It's as simple as "heads I win, tails you lose".

They have their models, they have what the models indicate and they don't need to pander to a bunch of luddites attempting to confuse the issue on idealogical grounds.

Astrologists have unfalsifiable models too. Do you consider astrology science?

Also I'm wondering who's fed you the "falsifiable hypothesis statement" technobabble

Well, if you watched the moon landing, perhaps you were too young to read Karl Popper's 1963 article: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

First you said it was mocking, now you say you are "counter-trolling".

You can consider them synonyms :)

If you are tempted to post warmist lies, misinformation and scaremongering, then you will be called on it. So get used to it.

Yes, of course, it's all a vast conspiracy by scientists to cover up the truth.

There again, you go and start lying and feeding misinformation - the warmist "scientists" are nothing of the sort, because they can't even fulfill the most basic requirements of the scientific method - falsifiability.

Consider yourself called on it *again* :)

Why did you not provide the citation, when called on it?

I did. You claim here that your memory, has in its depths, a citation of a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming:

"[me]So you assert (without proof). And unfortunately for you, I do happen to possess a good memory"

Are you going to assert that you meant something entirely different when you said you "possess a good memory"? You can clear all this up - do you believe there exists a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming? Have you seen it? Can you quote it?

The way we can tell astrology and catastrophic anthropogenic global warming aren't *really* science? Neither of them has a falsifiable hypothesis. The burden of proof rests with you. Are you unable to provide proof of your assertion?

Absolutely - http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

Now, are you going to argue that Popper got it wrong, and that it's possible to do science without falsifiability? If so, how do you exclude astrology?

Heck, *do* you exclude astrology?

What part of you have provided me with no compelling reason to respond to your assertion do you not understand?

And there you go - I called it :)

"Oh, wait, you'll just say "I'm not here to convince you" or "I won't do research for you" :)"

So, recap, you're intelligent, motivated, unable after dozens of comments to cite a single peer reviewed necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, and you have thusly been called out for your warmist lies, misinformation and scaremongering :)

The symmetry is quite pleasing, all in all :)

No science is ever "provable." Or can be.

And if he were skeptical, that wouldn't be a problem. But he seems to have made up his mind--not from looking at the scientific evidence, but based on economic interests. Mitigation would cost his owners money, so it can't be true. That's not skepticism.

WRONG

It's NOT science.

Science WELCOMES attempts at falsification. It does NOT label doubters "denialists" or "heretics".

Read this.. You might learn something. Though I doubt it.

And if it SHOUTS at people who DISAGREE with it and INSULTS their ability to understand the relevance of a fifty year old monograph on a tangentially related subject... then it's not science?

So what is it that you're practising instead?

Just curious.

Nice to know that the logical underpinnings of science are beyond your ken.

As if being a "fifty-year-old [sic] monograph" changes the fundamental fact that true science welcomes attempts at falsification with no childish retreat to labeling doubters "denialists".

Climate alarmists have reaped what they sowed with their over-the-top lies - a public that doubts their every word. Polar bears going extinct? Nope - there's more of them now then ever. Himalayan glaciers retreating? Nope. Strongest storm ever caused by climate change? Nope - there were stronger ones centuries ago.

Don't like the doubt?

Drop the smug superiority and the alarmist lies.

WRONG

It's NOT science.

Science WELCOMES attempts at falsification. It does NOT label doubters "denialists" or "heretics".

Read this.. You might learn something. Though I doubt it.

And if it SHOUTS at people who DISAGREE with it and INSULTS their ability to understand the relevance of a fifty year old monograph on a tangentially related subject... then it's not science?

So what is it that you're practising instead?

Just curious.

It isn't a religious faith. Its science. Its writing on the wall, and serious people are finally starting to read it. The people polluting the Earth are already having an impact on our weather patterns - one that has claimed lives.

WRONG

It's NOT science.

Science WELCOMES attempts at falsification. It does NOT label doubters "denialists" or "heretics".

Read this.. You might learn something. Though I doubt it.

But it sounds like this is only a problem for some variants of supersymmetry:

Yes and no. You can always change the theory to adapt, but if you continue to do that, at some point it stops being science, see http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html . SoSY has been counterproven by several different experiments now, they are slowly but steadily running out of all the nice versions, and they have never had any positive confirmation. All it relied on was that it could be nice model if it was true.

Astrologists make predictions that come true all the time - that doesn't make it science.

Hansen, in 1982, didn't specify a single observation that would have caused him to question his central conceit. My assertion is that to this day, he has never specified *any* observations that would cause him to question his central conceit. We have a word for these unfalsifiable hypotheses: religion.

Obligatory Popper link for you: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

Newton, for example, was not only religious, but even by the standards of the time, an extremist (anti-Trinitarian). To the extent that if his religious views had become known he could have been drawn and quartered for heresy. That didn't seem to inhibit him from inventing, for all intents and purposes, physics and coincidentally, calculus.

There were virtually no atheists throughout the history of humanity. They all killed each other over religion, not because some were religious and some were not, but because they couldn't tolerate the religion of others. Even today, atheists are an extreme minority mostly confined to people who want to pose as intellectuals.

Did you read the link? http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Did you understand that, despite over 95% of the 'normal' population were believers, only 7% of the TOP SCIENTIST (published and peer reviewed) were believers?

Did you notice how such percentage was 7% in 1998, compared to the 15% of 1933, or to the 27.7% of 1914?

Don't you see the trend? The more into the past you go, the more believers you'll find? How easy would be to proclaim themselves atheist or freethinkers in the dark ages? Isn't it true that it could get yourself killed? How come do you still claim that the vast majority of scientists are believers? COULD YOU EXPLAIN IT PLEASE?

Virtually every scientist in the history of science was religious

That's FALSE, among TOP scientists, belief in a personal 'god' is an exception, rather than the norm. Here's a sample: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

You've never heard of the wedge document, have you? Many Christians believe that teaching evolution is responsible for everything bad in our society.

Since always.

But the fact is that the scientists themselves overwhelmingly do not believe in gods. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.pdf

So in a sense, science and technology are the gift of non-theists to theists.

First point: doctors are not scientists. Not remotely. Some doctors happen to be scientists. But this is a separate career, and they frequently are unprepared for it. This is the subject of a separate debate.

Second point: this is of course unrelated to the fact that scientists are mostly atheists. Even in the US. It is irrelevant that there are theists doctors and theists scientists: there is variation in any population. It just happens that when you say that, you obscure the greater truth that overwhelming odds are they don't believe in gods. source: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.pdf

a properly-designed experiment with controls and metrics to assess the health of the participants.

I'm sorry, maybe I wasn't clear - what is your technical definition of "raw food"?

I'm just saying one can examine the question of whether it is effective, i.e., it does present a falsifiable hypothesis.

I'm sorry, again, I'm losing you on definitions - because "raw" doesn't correspond to some actual difference that we've got an easy measure for (let's say, like glycemic index), you're not presenting a falsifiable hypothesis. Any contrary information from an experiment, and you'll just say "oh, that wasn't *really* raw". Specifics, if you have them.

Come to think of it, all of the items on the list we're discussing can pose hypotheses that are falsifiable.

Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, where both hot temperatures and cold temperatures are considered validations of "predictions" is clearly not falsifiable. Every possible observation is asserted as compatible through ad hoc special pleadings.

More background from Popper: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

Climiate science is SCIENCE. In science, belief is irrelevant. Only evidence matters.

Then let's play the science game - state your falsifiable hypothesis of either AGW or CAGW. What observations of CO2 levels and global average temperature, past, present or future, would disprove your hypothesis? Add other variables if necessary, and be specific.

Obligatory popper reference: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

It is obvious that either quantum mechanics, or general relativity or both have problems, but it is not clear where those problems lie.

*Exactly*. As it stands, there is no theoretical physicist who would *dare* assert "the science is settled", and this is with a field that makes bold statements and predictions, and for the most part, has ranges where things are accurate descriptions.

Finding these things papers took all of five minutes. If you had wanted to know what climatologists actually think you could have done the same.

I've read the papers as well, and they're not at all convincing. I understand what the warmists believe, but because they can't even formulate a falsifiable hypothesis, one simply cannot call their position scientific.

What I can point out is that suggesting that a dispute about small anomalies in the present data somehow invalidates the entirety of climate science is absurd.

Who said the entirety of climate science is absurd? The entirety of "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming" is absurd, but we knew that already.

Or do you believe "climate science" means "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming"?

If you want to come back with objections then I will be all ears

Sure.

1) Your CaillonTermIII.pdf cite simply asserts that "This sequence of events is still in full agreement with the idea that CO2 plays, through its greenhouse effect, a key role in amplifying the initial orbital forcing." That's weasel talk. The fact of the matter is that not *once* in the paper do they specify any observation that would falsify their hypothesis. They claim that things are "consistent with", rather than making a prediction, and accepting the consequences. If they were doing *science*, they'd say "if you saw, such and such and such int he historical record, obviously our hypothesis would be wrong." Instead, they play astrology.

Obligatory popper ref: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

2) Ocean heat content is not rising as predicted (even though, as with any post mini ice age period, it is on the rebound), plus you're citing a 2008 paper when we have more recent data showing a break in the expected trend of increase:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/26/october-to-december-2011-nodc-ocean-heat-content-anomalies-0-700meters-update-and-comments/

3) Reductions in cyclone frequency definitely isn't the warmist story - the idea has been pushed time and time again that a warmer world means more extreme weather. Now, if you're saying that a warmer world means less cyclonic activity, and concede that cyclonic activity is a *bad* thing, are you categorically in *favor* of doing everything we can to make the world a warmer place?

4) Claims that the UHI effect are negligible are capable only if one throws away data which refutes that hypothesis. Any rigorous analysis of the UHI effect shows that it is both real, and significant.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/28/new-paper-uhi-alive-and-well-in-china/

Now, I'm perfectly happy to trade cites with you, but honestly, if you want to credibly attack this problem, you need to start off with your falsifiable hypothesis. Thus far, you've avoided taking any concrete position - are you willing to?

The concept of falsifiability is oversold. Science is about finding the best model(s) that match observations of the real world. The "best" model is the one that best fits observations.

Sounds like astrology to me.

Obligatory Popper ref: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

It's 72%, not 93%. Still high though. Source.

1998 Science article of a survey of the members of the National Academy of Sciences

Belief in personal God
Personal belief: 7%
Personal disbelief: 72%
Agnostic: 21%

There was another more recent survey of the Royal Society that found similar results.

Take one of the models, tweak the the parameters in any physically plausible way that you please, and show that you can come up with a version of the model that is consistent with the known climate record, and which does not predict warming.

Here's the more interesting point - referring to McIntyre again (http://climateaudit.org/2007/12/01/tuning-gcms/) -

"One curious aspect of this result is that it is also well known [Houghton et al., 2001] that the same models that agree in simulating the anomaly in surface air temperature differ significantly in their predicted climate sensitivity."

If you can come up with half a dozen models that reasonably hind cast, and share fairly similar forecasts, but have *wildly* differing base assumptions about climate sensitivity, you've already shown that it is possible to have wildly different models spit out the same tuned results :)

Again, the fatal flaw with these models is that they brook no falsifiability - every observation of future climate can simply be dispensed with by an ad hoc special pleading. This isn't the path of science, this is the path of astrology. Obligatory Popper cite: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

"As for Adler, I was much impressed by a personal experience. Once, in 1919, I reported to him a case which to me did not seem particularly Adlerian, but which he found no difficulty in analyzing in terms of his theory of inferiority feelings, Although he had not even seen the child. Slightly shocked, I asked him how he could be so sure. "Because of my thousandfold experience," he replied; whereupon I could not help saying: "And with this new case, I suppose, your experience has become thousand-and-one-fold.""

Imagine where we'd be if the first chemists said "we can't know anything until we know everything."

Imagine where we'd be if the first chemists said "fire, earth, air, water - the science is settled". :)

If you assume that water vapor, cloud and other effects are linearly dependent on CO2 levels in a narrow range of temperatures, then from modeling the past climate you can determine the climate sensitivity to CO2 without determining the size of each of the feedback mechanisms.

You can't assume that. You need to come up with a falsifiable hypothesis statement, and explicitly state what observations would falsify those assumptions. That's the way the science game is played.

Clouds also appear to be a small positive feedback rather than a negative feedback.

Not according to the latest research: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/20/new-peer-reviewed-paper-clouds-have-large-negative-feedback-cooling-effect-on-earths-radiation-budget/

But when you talk about all these factors you seem to be thinking that water vapor, clouds, and temperature could suddenly change without cause.

Far from it, I understand that all of these things have changed due to natural causes the entire history before mankind existed, and understand that our default null hypothesis should be that those same natural causes are what drive current observed climate changes.

Large cloud formations not predicted by the model that cause cooling would be a failure of the model (not to mention unlikely) that, if stable decade to decade, would refute global warming.

You're not being precise. Global warming happens. It has happened in the past, and will certainly happen in the future, and even large cloud formations could be asserted as an ad hoc special pleading that preserves your original intent of "human CO2 is what caused warming in the 20th century". Whether or not any given period of global warming can be attributed to a specific factor is the question. The fact that you can't specify what your falsifiable hypothesis statement is means that any straw man put up (i.e., human CO2 is responsible for .01C/decade warming, .02C/decade warming, etc, etc) can be objected to. Do me the favor of being specific in your falsifiable hypothesis statement, and we can skip the part where I have to read your mind.

Of course, but there is no known factor that matches the profile of climate change other than CO2 increase.

That's an argument from ignorance - just because we don't have a specific explanation for you, doesn't mean that your explanation is the truth. Without specifying what your falsifiable hypothesis statement is, you've essentially created a hypothesis that can match *any* profile that is observed. This is a weakness in a hypothesis, not a strength.

Obligatory Popper cite: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

"The most characteristic element in this situation seemed to me the incessant stream of confirmations, of observations which "verified" the theories in question; and this point was constantly emphasize by their adherents. A Marxist could not open a newspaper without finding on every page confirming evidence for his interpretation of history; not only in the news, but also in its presentation — which revealed the class bias of the paper — and especially of course what the paper did not say. The Freudian analysts emphasized that their theories were constantly verified by their "clinical observations." As for Adler, I was much impressed by a p

There's tons of falsifiability, you just won't hear about it from them.

I beg to differ. From your article cite:

"In one sense, the Theory of Global Warming is clearly a falsifiable scientific theory: all we need to do is wait around a while until industrial activities have doubled CO2, and observe what has happened to atmospheric temperature, water vapor and clouds. This indeed seems to be the experiment that most of the world seems intent on carrying out."

Even if you double CO2, and observe what has happened to atmospheric temperature, water vapor and clouds, you haven't linked it to the CO2. There are myriad drivers of climate and you cannot simply say "wait until we get to 750ppm CO2, and that'll prove it". There's no prediction being made at all.

Obligatory Popper cite: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

If you want to make the case that CAGW is falsifiable, make your falsifiable hypothesis statement. Exactly *what* CO2 and temperature combination would need to be observed in order to falsify it in 5 years? 10 years? 30 years? 100 years? If CO2 and temperature aren't sufficient for your hypothesis, feel free to add in other factors, but be specific.

Either show the global temperature is not rising or find a non-anthropogenic cause.

That's clever, but not convincing - the null hypothesis is that all observed climate changes are natural in origin.

Furthermore, isn't that confounded by the past 15 years of stalled temperatures but continually rising CO2? Oh wait, ad hoc special pleading to attribute the lack of warming to missing heat...or something, right?

The second you can concisely state an observation of CO2 and global average temperature, say, for next year, or even the next 10 years, or even the next 30 years, that would falsify your hypothesis, then we can start talking. Until then, you're relying on a universal explanatory power, which, as Popper points out so eloquently, is a *weakness* of a hypothesis: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

Overwhelming verification and agreement are not signs of a successful scientific hypothesis: see http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

A successful scientific hypothesis is falsifiable, and there are ruthless, unsuccessful attempts to look for those falsifications.

Evolution can be falsified by finding a rabbit fossil in the precambrian. How would you falsify AGW?

Pretty well defined by the name:

Either show the global temperature is not rising or find a non-anthropogenic cause.

(For the second you'd also have to come up with a workable theory of why the anthropogenic rise in CO2 is having no effect, or show the rise in CO2 is not anthropogenic, or not happening).

Get ready for your Nobel.

For falsifiable, all you have to show is that you can disprove it, which is has already been done.

I don't think you've shown that. You haven't specified any set of observations that would make you change your hypothesis. What you've cited are fairly uncontroversial physical constants, and then made the gigantic leap that their mere existence is sufficient to justify your hypothesis. I would go so far as to say that even if the spectral properties of CO2 were say, off by one nanometer to the right, that wouldn't falsify any rationally constructed AGW hypothesis. Heck, even if the CO2 emissions of humans were an order of magnitude less than they are, one could still make the ad hoc special pleading that these human CO2 molecules are distinctly different in isotope form, and therefore have an amplified effect (as is currently done with CO2 and H2O).

I refer again to Popper: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

What I would deem sufficient as a starting point is an example of global CO2 observations and global average temperature observations that you would consider a falsification of your hypothesis if they were seen next year. If the hypothesis isn't strong enough to make that kind of claim, I'm happy to see the same statement made for the next five years, or even the next 30. If the hypothesis statement requires caveats about solar activity, volcanic activity, cosmic ray activity, cloud activity, plant growth, and other variables, I expect those variables to be specified, and a clear falsifiable statement as to how attribution to those factors would be measured.

For the greater CAGW, I expect observations of the well being of humanity and the biosphere, taking into account both positives from warming and negatives from warming, and a clear falsifiable hypothesis statement regarding what observations of humanity and the biosphere would tip the scale from negative to positive.

What I currently hear as the hypothesis of AGW is driven by computer model predictions, with large error bars, and hard coded results when discrepancies arise. A hypothesis which requires innumerable ad hoc special pleadings to have its explanatory power isn't convincing.

Overwhelming verification and agreement are not signs of a successful scientific hypothesis: see http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

A successful scientific hypothesis is falsifiable, and there are ruthless, unsuccessful attempts to look for those falsifications.

Evolution can be falsified by finding a rabbit fossil in the precambrian. How would you falsify AGW?

Discover that CO2 doesn't absorb energy.
Discover that atmospheric CO2 is natural.
Discover alternative mechanism to explain warming.

The first two are necessary for your hypothesis, but not sufficient. The third is asking to prove a negative (essentially trying to redefine the null hypothesis), which is creative, but not convincing.

As for knowing if you are in denial or not -- read something you don't want to (say, the IPCC report), and watch your mind. If you feel negativity, then that is your cognitive systems being screwed with by denial. If you cannot read it, then you are over your head.

Do you feel negativity when you read Spencer, or McIntyre, or wattsupwiththat.com? :)

FWIW, I've read the IPCC report, and didn't feel any negativity, only a creeping suspicion that the very careful caveats made by the scientists were regularly ignored by those pushing the policy sections - much like the complaint on Spencer's latest is that it was oversold by press releases :)

There is a game you can play -- pick a single point in the AGW argument that you think is weak (or an event in the AGW story).

Sure, the single point which is weakest is the lack of a falsifiable hypothesis. Every event can be explained with an ad hoc special pleading, no matter how far it deviates from any model.

Obligatory popper ref: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

"I found that those of my friends who were admirers of Marx, Freud, and Adler, were impressed by a number of points common to these theories, and especially by their apparent explanatory power. These theories appear to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred. The study of any of them seemed to have the effect of an intellectual conversion or revelation, open your eyes to a new truth hidden from those not yet initiated. Once your eyes were thus opened you saw confirmed instances everywhere: the world was full of verifications of the theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it. Thus its truth appeared manifest; and unbelievers were clearly people who did not want to see the manifest truth; who refuse to see it, either because it was against their class interest, or because of their repressions which were still "un-analyzed" and crying aloud for treatment.

The most characteristic element in this situation seemed to me the incessant stream of confirmations, of observations which "verified" the theories in question; and this point was constantly emphasize by their adherents. A Marxist could not open a newspaper without finding on every page confirming evidence for his interpretation of history; not only in the news, but also in its presentation — which revealed the class bias of the paper — and especially of course what the paper did not say. The Freudian analysts emphasized that their theories were constantly verified by their "clinical observations." As for Adler, I was much impressed by a personal experience. Once, in 1919, I reported to him a case which to me did not seem particularly Adlerian, but which he found no difficulty in analyzing in terms of his theory of inferiority feelings, Although he had not even seen the child. Slightly shocked, I asked him how he could be so sure. "Because of my thousandfold experience," he replied; whereupon I could not help saying: "And with this new case, I suppose, your experience has become thousand-and-one-fold.""

Put another way, pretend we went back in time to 1990. What observation of CO2 levels and global average temperature in the year 2010 would have falsified the hypothesis of AGW? If you need more factors besides CO2 levels and global average temperature, let's be specific about that those other factors would be.

If we can't come up with any observations of real world CO2, global average temperature, and whatever other variables you wish to specify, that would cause you to reconsider your beliefs, you're not really playing the game of science.

So far there is a strong preponderance of evidence that they cannot, and that human-created emissions can.

A strong preponderance of evidence is not science. Astrology has a large body of confirming evidence, with many people fitting neatly into the horoscope personality types.

As Popper pointed out, a hypothesis isn't strengthened because more confirming evidence is shown, it's strengthened when falsification is sought out and not found. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

The problem is that any factor, be it cosmic rays, dust, ocean currents, undersea volcanic eruptions, plant growth, or human activity, is practically impossible to comb out of the data.

Case in point, the long term temperature trend over the past 15 or so years has been flat, even as CO2 levels have increased.

For your #2 you simply don't have any sort of long term cloud formation data across the globe, and for #3 we don't have nearly the weather data to assert we understand the climate impacts from that long ago.

The challenge to any hypothesis which asserts that any given factor is a dominant force is that you simply don't have a falsifiable hypothesis - ad hoc special pleadings for any variation from your prediction are the *norm* rather than the exception.

The challenge Spencer is making, that hasn't been adequately refuted, is that you cannot simply *assert* that clouds are always caused by weather systems. Dessler can certainly claim that it is true (while saying in the same breath that it isn't true in the "long term"), but unless you can avoid special pleading every time your prediction is shown wrong, you're not really doing science.

Obligatory popper ref: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

So to paraphrase, some silly beliefs are unforgivable but others are given a pass? Literal creation in 7 days is beyond the pale, but say, a virgin birth and human sacrifice to cleanse the world of its sins is okay for scientists?

As for ID, doesn't it have more in common with the unfalsifiable hypotheses of CAGW or AGW? If we're going to do science, should we be playing by the rules of the scientific method?

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

Funny thing, both ID and CAGW (or its lesser cousin AGW) are notoriously unfalsifiable :) Just remove the word "CO2" from your assertions and replace it with "God", and you've got essentially the same thing :)

Obligatory Popper reference: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

Are you denying not only natural climate change, but what you actually *wrote*? :)

A few pertinent links for you:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:IrMArI7oZ44J:boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php%3Ft%3D521245+global+warming+falsifiable&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

Read with an open mind, you might actually learn something! :)

It's far worse than you think. These fundamentalists believe that evolution is to blame for the moral decline in society. They don't want anyone to learn evolution, because it leads to sin.

Citation, please?

One example:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

And for a nice example of an anti-religious bigot leading a nasty crusade to discredit a theory that was later vindicated, please see Jesuit physicist George LeMaitre's "primordial atom theory" which is known to this day by Fred Hoyle's derisive epithet, "the big bang theory".

You should provide more detail if you expect me to see anything. Otherwise you may as well write "as an example of quantum mechanics, see rocks".

Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.

The idea of falsifiability is simply that there must (at least in principle) exist some test, which can refute the theory if the test produces a certain result. This is where creationism and similar cargo cults fail - there is no conceivable test that can be performed on these hypotheses that has AT LEAST one possible (doesn't have to be probable) outcome that could refute the theory. The idea (it's subtle, which is why it is misunderstood so often) is that if every test you could possibly perform to test a hypothesis supports the theory no matter what the outcome of the test, is there really any point to the tests? Creationism is like the self-esteem movement for social conservatives =).

[From the same source as the last quote] One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.

You may find http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html interesting.

Your knowledge of history is shockingly bad.

It's amazing how you can make such a sweeping statement from a simple seven line sentence.

...Hitler and his party (decidedly non-Christian)...

No Hitler was Catholic. If he was warping Christianity to suit his own sick views of world domination, well thats not really different that a lot of leaders in power. Take a look at the following for documented evidence of his (grantedly twisted) Christian views, if you have any intellectual curiosity that is. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_hitler.html

Oh, and universal healthcare is indeed socialist.

No it is not. This just means you have no idea what socialism is. Do you also consider the public school system, police, firefighters and the military to be socialist? Don't confuse socialism with social programs. They are two completely different things.

Your healthcare is way overpriced for the services you receive. You are paying for all the accountants and administration in the background to track every little nickel and figure out how to bill for it. If this was just paid for (as in Canada) then health cost for identical service would be halved (as in Canada). This has been analyzed and documented to be true.

It's often said that America has the best health care in the world. Well this is true but what isn't said is that the majority, upwards of 90% or more, of Americans cannot receive this type of care because they cannot afford it. The rest get good healthcare no different than say Canada, just twice as expensive. Then there is a sizeable group that cannot afford any healthcare.

You need to read: Evolution as Fact and Theory. Evolution is a fact as far as science is concerned. It's also a correct theory.