Slashdot Mirror
Strong Climate Change Opinions Are Self-Reinforcing
An anonymous reader writes "A study recently published in Nature (abstract) looked at how personal beliefs altered a person's perception of climate change. Surveying a sample of people in 2008 and then the same people again in 2011, the study looked for 'motivated reasoning,' where 'high belief certainty influenced perceptions of personal experience,' and 'experiential learning,' where 'perceived personal experience of global warming led to increased belief certainty.' According to the article, 'When you categorize individuals by engagement — essentially how confident and knowledgeable they feel about the facts of the issue — differences are revealed. For the highly-engaged groups (on both sides), opinions about whether climate is warming appeared to drive reports of personal experience. That is, motivated reasoning was prevalent. On the other hand, experience really did change opinions for the less-engaged group, and motivated reasoning took a back seat.None of that is truly surprising, but it leads to a couple interesting points. First, the concrete here-and-now communication strategy is probably a good one for those whose opinions aren't firmly set — fully 75 percent of Americans, according to the polling. But second, that tack is unlikely to get anywhere with the 8 percent or so of highly-engaged Americans who reject the idea of a warming planet, and are highly motivated to disregard anything that says otherwise.'"
Can you find just one scientist that said that in winter and in summer? Should be easy, right? Please provide a link.
Prof. Obvious of the Romero Institute noted today that people who already strongly believe something will continue to do so regardless of new evidence. In related news, the government edges closer to falling off the fiscal cliff, the totally solvable budget problem that we created to force our two political parties to play nice together. Both sides have recently stated they aren't open to negotiation, will not offer any concessions, and aren't talking to each other, however our correspondent on the scene reported recently that they have started writing numbers down on a sheet of paper. The sheet of paper was not immediately available for comment at the time of this post.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
"I believe GW is happening and that it causes bad things. Today bad weather happened, must be due to GW."
or
"I do not believe GW is happening or that it causes bad things. Today bad weather happened, as it does from time to time."
"I did not believe GW was happening, but did believe it would cause worse hurricane. Today a bad hurricane happened, so now I have more faith in GW."
or
"I did not believe GW was happening, but did believe it would cause hotter summers.. We had snowfall in June so, therefore, no GW.
The far more interesting thing than the conclusion reached by the source is that none of these is a remotely scientific line of reasoning. Correlating personal experience (i.e., weather events) with climate is long acknowledged as foolish, just like jumping to the conclusion that you live in the most unsafe city in the world because you got mugged -- or that you live in the safest one because you've never been mugged.
I've read plenty of studies talking about how abnormally cold winters in many places are also the result of climate change. What you did there? It's a logical fallacy. You're assuming that scientists say that, then making an erroneous conclusion based on it. But your initial assumption isn't factual.
"goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
Cognitive bias is nothing new; it is not specific to climate change.
"A cognitive bias is a pattern of deviation in judgment that occurs in particular situations, which may sometimes lead to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, illogical interpretation, or what is broadly called irrationality." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias
Sent from my ENIAC
How about just relying on the science to speak for itself?
A figure of 75 percent unconvinced is encouraging in one sense. I means that the majority of the people aren't buying either argument yet. That's fine. We don't have anywhere near a clear understanding of how climate change is working (or not), who or what is responsible and what, if anything, we can do about it. The fact that the majority remains skeptical is a healthy sign.
We can only hope that the group that actually does the science and gets it right will sway the majority. And that the group who is giving up on the science and switching over to propaganda and public opinion manipulation will be recognized as an admission of the failure to get the figures to go their way.
Have gnu, will travel.
But second, that tack is unlikely to get anywhere with the 8 percent or so of highly-engaged Americans who reject the idea of a warming planet, and are highly motivated to disregard anything that says otherwise.
I'm surprised the figure isn't much higher. The denial movement has been quite strong lately, even here on slashdot where you might expect some degree of scientific literacy.
Given the high percentage of ACs among the anti-GW posts, you have to wonder whether they are ordinary slashdotters or shills. Or trolls.
Ditto for the many creationists, though I don't think so many of them are ACs.
Given that we have people who sit around all day watching television hoping to find something they can complain to the FCC about, I find myself wondering if you've got groups of people who sit around "watching" the internet for stories to cast doubt on.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Maybe if the warmists tried persuasion, posting from their login account instead of calling everyone a scientifically illiterate jerkface dweeb as AC, they might be winning more people over to their point of view.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
He doesn't have to, because of the magical use of the meaningless term "Scientific consensus" by virtually all of the scientists and journalists writing about the field. What we're told, over and over, is that virtually all credible scientists are speaking with one voice.
The idea that science is somehow subject to a vote is even scarier than the idea that it should be subservient to religion.
If someone says they believe in AGW but refuse to support nuclear technology, the ONLY technology able to replace our base load generation requirements and not produce CO2, then it is more likely that they believe in AGW only as a vehicle to impose their already established political agenda of rationing and taxes.
The irony is that if we did go full nuclear, it would go a long way towards satisfying the agendas of anti-AGW people (Cheap and abundant energy) and the AGW crowd.
Then we'd never have to suffer any more wanksfests about Global Warming on Slashdot again. That right there should be worth a few rads of exposure.
weather != climate
>....when it's extremely cold in the winter, scientists say thats just normal weather, but when it's extremely hot in the summer, it's global warming?
They don't. Some PEOPLE do, but I haven't heard climate scientists claim that. I heard some people 'disprove' global warming every time it snows.
Who do you trust more to give you the facts about this issue?
1. The vast majority of scientists who have devoted their professional lives to the study of the earth's climate;
2. Politicians.
I thought strong opinions were self-reinforcing. Disclaimer: I didn't read the article, just the title.
Scientists rarely say anything one way or the other. They publish papers and then the politicos, pundits and whatever you call us here on Slashdot and other sites start arguing and calling each other names over what they published.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
It's insane how so many other areas of study are just accepted when 99% of scientists agree, but this one is different. Shall I listen to some turd on the internet, or people who've been studying it most of their lives and actually know what they are talking about?!
....when it's extremely cold in the winter, scientists say thats just normal weather, but when it's extremely hot in the summer, it's global warming?
Maybe you could make us a list of scientists who are saying that.
We know about global warming, not from observing warm days, but from longitudinal measurements from all over the world.
And of course, we understand the mechanism. The "greenhouse" property of certain gasses that we have been spewing into the atmosphere in ever-increasing amounts since the beginning of the industrial age has been known IIRC for about 200 years.
Also, global warming doesn't imply warm winters in any particular location. It means more thermal energy in our atmosphere and oceans, which can destabilize that very complex dynamical system that we call "weather".
For an example of a mechanism whereby global warming can make winter colder in specific locations, see "The Winters of Our Discontent" in the December 2012 Scientific American.
But then, I'm guessing that you're not particularly interested in learning how scientists figure out what's going on, or you wouldn't be posting such nonsense. A "first post!" would have made you look less foolish.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
To show how these things work, I've been thinking about setting up a denial campaign for an obviously factual event: "Hurricane" Sandy.
It wasn't really a hurricane. National weather service decided not to issue a warning. The roller coaster would not have landed in one piece as it is photographed. We could build a pretty solid case that it wasn't real. It would really piss off the people who were there :-)
Bruce Perens.
We are pleased to announce that in recognition of their high engagement and their high motivation to disregard facts, those 8% are all eligible to a Darwin award.
I think the Darwin Award would only be appropriate if their actions harmed themselves without having the same negative consequences on the rest of us.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
MOND!
Jerry Pournelle
Burt Rutan
Freeman Dyson
Not going to listen to politicians or political scientists on either side. The southern hemisphere has been on a "global cooling" trend the last 10+ years while the northern hemisphere has been on a "global warming" trend. There is record ice creation an the south pole while we record ice loss at the north pole. I am not saying they cancel each other out , but you only ever hear once side of the story.
The media has been extremely biased on what information they portray to the public. They justify it by saying that they don't want to "confuse" people ... Like they should decide? Like they actually understand themselves what is truly going on? If they are going to report north pole ice melts shouldn't they also report record south pole ice levels? There are really good scientists on both sides of the issue and the fact that some politician and media network can declare a winner on a scientific issue is just disgusting.
They do it by using words such as "consensus", "most scientists", and "expert" ... while never telling you that a Consensus is a logical fallacy, "most" doesn't mean anything as it could by 50%+1 of people that you picked to talk too, and "expert" could mean anything.
I am a scientist, but not one in the field of global climate. I make no claims to know what is happening, but I have to wonder why these people can believe they do. The planet has been both warmer and cooler than it is now and it seems rather arrogant for someone to draw a line in the sand and say what is and is normal. Hell, 125,000 years ago ... basically yesterday on a planetary scale ... there was no ice at the north pole at all. Life back then would think that what we have today is not normal.
The time to do something effective about climate change was 20 years ago. And the scientific data was solid back then. It was ignored because it was too inconvenient. I guess that will make a nice inscription on the tomb-stone of the current civilization: "It died because saving itself was too inconvenient".
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
A lot of the anti-globalwarming movement rely on classic FUD, throwing enough shit on the wall and counting on that something will stick.
The most interesting thing I've noticed about both sides is how quick each is to dismiss the other's opinions. I've spent quite a bit of time reading well written opinions on both side and I can conclusively say that there is solid reasoning on both sides. There is also a lot of poorly written and even more poorly reasoned stuff out there.
Short but related story: I got sick of political attack advertisments a couple election cycles back. I started keeping track of every negative ad I saw and voted for the candidates who ran the least.
If I were doing the same thing to determine whether I'd support or oppose climate change, I'd certainly have long since decided to oppose AGW. I don't think that's the right way to decide, but language like the parent poster's doesn't help the cause.
B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
Climate change is big business. Those in the profession who don't push the agenda end up hungry. Money corrupts all, and at this point I basically have a hard time believing anyone 100%. Scare tactics work, and generate money. And when caught in a flat out lie, over overexageration it becomes a 1 step forward, 2 steps back as far as trust with me.
So how come scientists in all the other fields are too stoopid to get in on the scam? Can't astronomers just make up claims about a non-existent asteroid that's going to smash us later this century if we don't poor big money into further research, and rely on greed to keep anyone from revealing the fraud? Physicists, astronomers, biologists, geologists - all too dull witted or honest to do what those clever climatologists have done.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
We are pleased to announce that in recognition of their high engagement and their high motivation to disregard facts, those 8% are all eligible to a Darwin award.
I think the Darwin Award would only be appropriate if their actions harmed themselves without having the same negative consequences on the rest of us.
Indeed, I can only agree with you. On the other hand, if an 8% of ignorants is enough to prevent us to act collectively, we are in for the highest Darwin award (or next to the highest as the highest would be the extinction of all life): a Species Darwin Award.
Often, because people are dumb.
More justifiably, there have been some recent heat waves that are far enough off the bell curve to make it plausible that the center of the bell curve has shifted.
He doesn't have to, because of the magical use of the meaningless term "Scientific consensus" by virtually all of the scientists and journalists writing about the field. What we're told, over and over, is that virtually all credible scientists are speaking with one voice.
It's a simple fact that virtually all credible scientists are speaking with one voice, and as such, it has meaning. It is not direct evidence that global warming is occurring; it is good evidence that the direct evidence has been thoroughly examined.
The idea that science is somehow subject to a vote is even scarier than the idea that it should be subservient to religion.
Well, I have comforting news for you: it's not. You seem to have scared yourself with your own rhetoric.
There isn't any need, nor motivation to persuade anyone. Denialists can think what they like. What they cannot do, is say what they like. If you are tempted to post denialist lies, misinformation and scaremongering, then you will be called on it. So get used to it.
Then, it's climate, not weather. Otherwise somebody would have to take responsibility and what self-respecting politician would do that?
No matter how many decades engineers say that the levees in New Orleans are perfectly insufficient for a city in that place, it's still climate change when the inevitable happens. When hurricane Irene came to New York last year, the models of the expected flooding were right at everybodies hands - because it happened before. Several times.
Nobody asked the obvious question: Why hasn't anybody done anything about it, since everybody seems to know about it?
"But second, that tack is unlikely to get anywhere with the 17 percent or so of highly-engaged Americans who reject the idea of a *naturally* warming planet, and are highly motivated to disregard anything that says otherwise."
There, fixed. Both sides apparently have highly motivated reasoning going on, no reason you can't turn the sentence around the other way.
I'd suggest the way to discern between the motivated reasoning and the scientific truth requires ye good old falsifiable hypothesis statement as per Karl Popper.
WTF,
hurricane != climate
flood != climate
drought != climate
tornado != climate
superultramegastorm sandy !=climate
record high temperature at a given location != climate
record low temperature at a given location != climate ...actually, I might actually call drought "climate" now that I think about it.
They come out with a bogus study that says 97% of scientists all agree. That's not proof, it's social proof.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Proof
The ad hominem attacks aren't necessary, but typical of unskeptical-science types.
Sorry, but I believe in calling a spade a spade.
I have the utmost sympathy for someone who has an IQ of 70, but IMO people who are wilful idiots deserve all the crap anyone cares to dump on them.
I guess if you can't attack the argument, attack the person instead. At least you'll feel better. I see you did attack the argument earlier on, but you might as well not have bothered with a sign-off like that.
But you see, I *did* attack the argument. You're just latching on to the fact that I ended by mentioning that anyone who made the slightest effort to inform themselves never would have made the argument in the first place.
Maybe we should address the question of why you're doing that instead of responding to my refutation of the argument?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
but I also believe it is not due to mankind.
You must concede that mankind has some influence though right? I mean for millions of years there has been a fairly stable cycle of volcano's etc spewing out CO2 and the plants locking the carbon away underground to keep the balance approximately even, and now we are taking that buried carbon and turning it back into CO2, and also cutting down the trees, while the other outputs of CO2 remain approximately constant.
CO2 is a known greenhouse gas and the mechanism is well understood, so I hardly think that's up for debate. Just how much influence that is having on the current climate and how much influence it is going to have in the future is a bit of guesswork (there are other much more potent greenhouse gases around, like water vapour and methane), but to say that mankind has not had any impact at all seems a little ignorant.
He doesn't have to, because of the magical use of the meaningless term "Scientific consensus" by virtually all of the scientists and journalists writing about the field. What we're told, over and over, is that virtually all credible scientists are speaking with one voice.
The idea that science is somehow subject to a vote is even scarier than the idea that it should be subservient to religion.
As someone who thinks the "scientific consensus" on AGW is much more likely correct than not, I have to say I agree with this. History is littered with examples of scientific consensus that was later proven wrong, and indeed that is the very definition of scientific progress.
The key thing to consider when evaluating an unsettled scientific issue is to note whether the evidence for a particular hypothesis gets stronger or weaker as more and better research is done. By my admittedly layman's interpretation of what read, the evidence for AGW has only been getting stronger over time, and the evidence presented against it seems increasingly narrow. But even though I agree with the "scientific consensus", I hate hearing and reading it as the cliched soundbite and doubt it's convincing any of that 75% of people who are unsure (however they defined unsure).
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
Climate change is big business. Those in the profession who don't push the agenda end up hungry.
Either that, or the scientists overseeing grant funding are actually competent, and don't waste money on crackpots who fail to grasp even the most basic results in the discipline.
Nah. It's gotta be the conspiracy.
The climate data isn't mere the preponderance of the evidence, it is overwhelming. A team that loses 5-4 can say the need a couple of breaks, a team that loses 11,000 to 24 – got hosed.
Fugue for Aaron Swartz
I always love it when a poster violates his sig.
Fugue for Aaron Swartz
I am pro-GW (I am in favor of it). So perhaps I may be of some assistance. I try to resist posting in global warming related 'stories' because:
1. They are off topic for this site. Nothing to do with geeks or technology or Linux.
2. Any post I make is likely to be modded down to -1 and vanish before any interesting discussion can develop. That is pretty much inevitible with any controversial topic where the overwhelming majority is on one side of the debate. I think you guys really do prefer to just debate among yourselves anyway.
Let me summarize the debate. One side believes there is sufficient evidence for theory X. The other side believes there is insufficient evidence. The side that believes there is sufficient evidence believes that the evidence is so overwhelming that to be skeptical of it is of the same order as being skeptical of gravity.
I personally believe rational argument is virtually impossible on the topic of global warming. Devout AGW believers will not be swayed by any argument. To them
AGW is self-evident and the burden of proof should be on the other side to prove that it is not happening.
GW heretics like myself OTOH, will not be convinced of AGW without the sort of overwhelming evidence that we aren't likely to ever have. Certainly not within the lifetime of anyone now alive. The fact that the vast majority believes AGW is undeniably real and even some kind of immediate threat to our species makes it even more unlikely that any real evidence will ever be gathered. Why bother to gather evidence about something that the majority of the world has already decided is undeniably true? These days scientists (and I use that term loosely) focus on refining and reinforcing the argument in favor of AGW. Not so much on proving that it exists.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
I wasn't saying they shouldn't do it, nor be banned from doing it, nor that it should be illegal. Only that this other way might be more effective. I fully support the warmist choice to be ineffective. More power to 'em. Just trying to be helpful here.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
The two facts here that the denialists are hiding from are 1. AGW is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence, 2. They ran and a running a large well funded smear operation to lie about AGW, and continue to do so, for their own self-interest.
The tolerance for thermocidal mania is reaching zero, because AGW is an existential threat. Within a finite, and increasingly short period of time, denialism will be as acceptable as creationism and overt bigotry: some people will still feel it, but people will voice it only to be transgressive.
Fugue for Aaron Swartz
The real issue is that CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas and does not nearly explain the warming. In fact, Earth has been warming for 10,000 years since the last ice age. We are going to face a warm future, and all this silliness about controlling CO2 is a form of denial of reality.
We not only failing to control CO2 in most developing nations (including the two most populous on the planet), we actually claim that we only want to "slow the growth in annual CO2 production".
Even if humankind were successful, it would have little effect on the temperature. We are going to be growing Corn in Manchuria, Soy Beans in Canada, and Cantaloupes in Siberia. Live with it. Plan on growing oranges in New Jersey.
The ad hominem attacks aren't necessary, but typical of unskeptical-science types.
Sorry, but I believe in calling a spade a spade.
I have the utmost sympathy for someone who has an IQ of 70, but IMO people who are wilful idiots deserve all the crap anyone cares to dump on them.
I guess if you can't attack the argument, attack the person instead. At least you'll feel better. I see you did attack the argument earlier on, but you might as well not have bothered with a sign-off like that.
But you see, I *did* attack the argument. You're just latching on to the fact that I ended by mentioning that anyone who made the slightest effort to inform themselves never would have made the argument in the first place.
Maybe we should address the question of why you're doing that instead of responding to my refutation of the argument?
I did acknowledge that you attacked the argument. I didn't make any effort to respond to your refutation because I completely agree with you (both on your statements on the mechanics of global warming and that the OP is an uninformed dick). All I was saying was that your closing comments dilute the rest of your argument and could have been left off, as it brings the whole post down to the level of those you are responding to, which is not somewhere you want to go. A personal attack does not belong here.
And of course, we understand the mechanism.
Are you sure? The last glacial maximum was between 19-25000 years ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum) during which time vast portions of North America and Europe were covered in ice sheets.
19,000 years is a pretty short period of time in the grand scheme of things. To think the location I'm currently living was underneath a kilometer of ice less than 20,000 years ago, and no there are no glaciers anywhere close, the logical conclusion is the earth has been warming up for a lot longer than just the time since the industrial age. In fact, from what I understand about earth's history, we've been a majorly tropical planet for most of the time and ice cover is somewhat rare.
There's no doubt we have some effect on the changing climate (in regards to temperature via the greenhouse effect), but to say that is the mechanism causing the earth to warm seems like a huge jump from basic logic.
Yeah, compared to oil, where there is no money at all.
Fugue for Aaron Swartz
There you go. This is how to win friends and influence people.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
The real issue you have is that you are full of crap.
Fugue for Aaron Swartz
The tendency to believe things which agree with your existing beliefs is called "confirmation bias".
Truly I'm astonished that this post:
....when it's extremely cold in the winter, scientists say thats just normal weather, but when it's extremely hot in the summer, it's global warming?
Maybe you could make us a list of scientists who are saying that.
We know about global warming, not from observing warm days, but from longitudinal measurements from all over the world.
And of course, we understand the mechanism. The "greenhouse" property of certain gasses that we have been spewing into the atmosphere in ever-increasing amounts since the beginning of the industrial age has been known IIRC for about 200 years.
Also, global warming doesn't imply warm winters in any particular location. It means more thermal energy in our atmosphere and oceans, which can destabilize that very complex dynamical system that we call "weather".
For an example of a mechanism whereby global warming can make winter colder in specific locations, see "The Winters of Our Discontent" in the December 2012 Scientific American.
But then, I'm guessing that you're not particularly interested in learning how scientists figure out what's going on, or you wouldn't be posting such nonsense. A "first post!" would have made you look less foolish.
Would draw this vitriolic response:
This is your typical AGW cheerleader and the reason the public is skeptical.
Someone just coming into this debate expresses a reservation or asks a well meaning question and shit like this gets thrown in their face by assholes like this.
You go right ahead calling a spade a spade and they will go right ahead calling you a fucking asshole and electing people who think the same.
OK, I'm not actually astonished at all, since this isn't my first time to visit the internet. And if pointing out that bullshit walks makes me a fucking asshole, then I'll wear the label gladly.
But more to the point, why would anyone base their opinion about a topic on the perceived manners, or lack thereof, of other people expressing their opinions, rather than on well established facts? That may be a great strategy for anyone who wants to support an opinion that is contradicted by the facts, but it's a piss-poor strategy for everyone else.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Motivated reasoning and gubermint sponsored "scientists" that insist flawed code = physical experiments and up = down. McIntyre has repeatedly shown how venal and biased this group is. Piltdown Man has 21st century decendents who are alive and aggressively fraudulent, looking to replicate Nazi equivalent ideologies. That CAGW financial and power scam, the Clinton-Gore $100 billion per year grab exceeds the peak Exxon-Shell oil profits at the mere cost of bending a group of opportunistic modelers and desperate academic failures. CAGW has become simply "seize the means" and oppress the population Statism for the 21st century.
How do you classify people who definitely believe the earth is getting warmer, but not because of the activity of people? How do you classify people who believe that a warmer Earth would be beneficial overall to all living things including human beings? Where do fossil fuels come from and why do we call them that? Where was all that carbon that we humans are now so lustily burning, before the fossil fuels existed?
I will give you my answers. Yes, there is evidence that the earth is getting warmer, but there is no evidence YET that human activity is to blame. Living things generally do much better when it is warmer than when it is cold. There are large land areas on earth, which are too cold to grow much food for any creature, including people. Fossil fuels come from things that were once alive, both plants and animals. In order for plants to take in carbon to make hydrocarbons with, they get it from the atmosphere.
Consequently, before fossil fuels were formed, all the carbon we have already burned plus all that is still in the ground must have been in the atmosphere, where plants could take it and water, in combination with sunlight to make hydrocarbons, which later were buried. Now we dig up and pump some of these hydrocarbons and put the carbon back in the atmosphere. If living creatures, before they became fossils were able to live in a much warmer climate due to the abundant carbon dioxide, then it is quite likely that humans would also be able to not only survive, but thrive on a uniformly warm Earth.
A sufficiently advanced simulation is indistinguishable from reality.
I am pro-GW (I am in favor of it)
I'm guessing that that doesn't mean what it sounds like!
Joking aside, I appreciate your forthright post. And I despise the fact that people mod down posts that state views that they don't agree with. (Much better, IMO, to mod them *up*, so that the post and the refutations (or attempts) will be read by more people.)
But IMO, here's the crux:
Let me summarize the debate. One side believes there is sufficient evidence for theory X. The other side believes there is insufficient evidence. The side that believes there is sufficient evidence believes that the evidence is so overwhelming that to be skeptical of it is of the same order as being skeptical of gravity.
I am not a climatologist, but I do know a bit about how science works. And I know that the overwhelming majority of *scientists* believes that there is sufficient evidence for the fact (not theory) of global warming. So for me there *aren't* two sides.
Now scientists aren't divinely inspired, and are in fact sometimes wrong, but in the big picture science bases its views on evidence, and even goes out of its way to look for refuting evidence. So for me this is like asking whether I should invest in someone's flying car business when the overwhelming majority of aeronautical engineers say that the design won't actually fly, contradicted by a smaller number of non-experts who publish their views as editorials in the Wall Street Journal rather than engineering journals. There simply isn't the slightest reason to examine "two sides". Especially when the contradictors resort to arguments that the entire field of aeronautical engineering are lying because they want the venture to fail. It's just nonsense.
I personally believe rational argument is virtually impossible on the topic of global warming. Devout AGW believers will not be swayed by any argument. To them AGW is self-evident and the burden of proof should be on the other side to prove that it is not happening.
No, AGW is based on evidence. As I said, I'm not a climatologist, but I can read.
The fact that the vast majority believes AGW is undeniably real and even some kind of immediate threat to our species makes it even more unlikely that any real evidence will ever be gathered.
FWIW, I do believe that AGW is undeniably real, but that the only "threat" is poses to our species is inconvenience, and probably a lot of deaths in wars by nations trying to optimize their own convenience at the expense of others, but hardly an extinction-level event. (*Maybe* a runaway instability will render our planet uninhabitable, but I'm not aware of any evidence that that is our fate.)
The fact that the vast majority believes AGW is undeniably real and even some kind of immediate threat to our species makes it even more unlikely that any real evidence will ever be gathered. Why bother to gather evidence about something that the majority of the world has already decided is undeniably true?
As a matter of fact, scientists *are* busy gathering additional evidence. The fact that both old and new evidence overwhelmingly support one conclusion is hardly a reason to deny that conclusion.
These days scientists (and I use that term loosely) focus on refining and reinforcing the argument in favor of AGW. Not so much on proving that it exists.
Scientists are also busy studying gravity and the expanding universe, but as with global warming, they're far past the point of needing to determine whether those phenomena exist.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
But you see, I *did* attack the argument
You can see it by reading his post before replying to it, as well.
Since clearly you did not read his post, since you began with something he already said while acting like he didnt know it, well.. that tells us how emotionally involved you are, which explains the insults you were using too.
It is very clear that your belief, be it scientifically right or wrong, is internally justified on an emotional rather than rational level. That you are so vocal about it means that nobody should listen to you on any topic, because you clearly believe internally that emotion-inspired reasoning trumps rational arguments.
"His name was James Damore."
denialists (like Jim Inhofe) will build a snowman and say, "What climate change? Nyuck, nyunk." People are conflating climate with weather. Climate is an average of what has happened over a period of years, decades or even centuries.
Scientists can't definitively say that Hurricane Sandy was caused by global warming any more than doctors say that one particular home run by Barry Bonds was as a result of steroid use. What both can say is that the likelihood of either is much increased by their respective underlying conditions.
I see little difference between Creationists who think the Earth is 6,000 years old and global warming deniers who think that humans aren't responsible for changing the climate by burning millions of years worth of sequestered carbon in less than three centuries. I'd really like to know how releasing gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere in the geologic blink of an eye doesn't have an effect. On a separate note, humans have altered the nitrogen cycle through the Haber-Bosch process by removing nitrogen from the atmosphere and put it into the biosphere. That amount of nitrogen in the biosphere hadn't changed in over a hundred million years.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
Well isn't it obvious? Every day the earth warms means that more and more people are sinning and not asking for forgiveness. Eventually Satan will come out of the depths (followed closely by an annoying sounding English speaking Saddam Hussein) to literally rain fire and bring hell to earth and all the sinners that remain. And everybody in heaven will be standing on unfrozen icebergs that encase tons of carbon while looking down on all the bad people burning and suffering in eternal damnation.
why would anyone base their opinion about a topic on the perceived manners, or lack thereof, of other people expressing their opinions, rather than on well established facts?
This goes both ways. Why should anyways listen to people with a penchant for emotional outbursts? Especially when there were those 'facts' that they could have used, but decided to go on an emotional outburst instead?
"His name was James Damore."
Other scientists do make such claims. They get laughed away, as they should. So did the idiot* who created the myth of global warming, until a couple of decades later when a certain powerful politician latched onto it, turned it into a political issue, and built a billion-dollar company around it.
* I call him an idiot because he thinks Venus is hot because of its atmosphere, while anyone with half a brain should know that Venus is hot because it's closer to the Sun, and that its atmosphere is a result of its temperature, not the other way around.
I don't care about the biased opinions of climate scientists. I don't care what they believe. I bet many of them believe in a supernatural entity of some kind. I will never believe a particular thing is true due to a poll. These discussions should only be about one thing: raw data.
Show me the numbers. Not someone's opinion about what they mean, but a detailed description of each experiment and the raw data that resulted.
Any of you devout AGW believers should have a detailed list on hand and be able to thoroughly explain each experiment as well as the resulting data. If you cannot cite the undeniable proof that you are always referring to but almost never actually showing then it could be argued that you have no idea what you are talking about.
I remain unconvinced of AGW for one reason: insufficient data to draw any conclusion one way or the other. It may well be that the amount of CO2 our species produces is sufficient to significantly warm the planet. It is certainly not impossible. However as far as I have seen that hypothesis remains unproven. Show me sufficiently convincing data from multiple experiments and I am quite willing to change my mind.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Link to the "actual data", please?
[parent post not worth quoting]
a) No climatologist claims that they can explain "every single event ever observed", even if you limit that to relevant events.
b) Why do you think what climatologists say isn't falsifiable? Did thermometers stop working or something? Are the melting glaciers and ice caps irrelevant? Do you know of some climatologists' hypothesis where measurable quantities such as, say, warming, are irrelevant?
This is like saying that continental drift is an unfalsifiable hypothesis in an age when we can directly measure it.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The idea that you are misunderstanding it in such a way, if that is really what you are doing and not just pretending to be dumb to try to push a very silly point, is even scarier.
Consider the consensus on the directions of up and down for example. Is it scary that everyone agrees on those?
If AGW is finally proven beyond any doubt then the logical thing to do is build nuclear power plants. Lots and lots of them.
Fossil fuel plants would have to be retired or converted into nuclear powered plants. In addition to AC powered highways (raised wires or high voltage rails in the road surface) combined with affordable electric cars of course.
As far as getting the entire planet to agree to go 100% nuclear and give up on fossil fuel powered cars I haven't a clue. That would be very, very difficult and maybe impossible. Especially in poor countries where everyone might have to go back to bicycles.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Devout AGW believers will not be swayed by any argument. To them AGW is self-evident and the burden of proof should be on the other side to prove that it is not happening.
I think it's important to understand that for decades AGW has convinced an overwhelming majority of scientists and become the scientific consensus. If you want to explain the same data with a different theory you can't just pretend the current theory doesn't exist, you have to show why it's wrong and your theory is better.
GW heretics like myself OTOH, will not be convinced of AGW without the sort of overwhelming evidence that we aren't likely to ever have. Certainly not within the lifetime of anyone now alive.
How do you know we don't have the overwhelming evidence? Something is convincing all the scientists, for me AGW skepticism always seems to fall down when it's tasked with explaining how all the scientists are wrong. It's always skeptics playing like they're researchers and interpreting the data themselves, but if they ever put in enough work to become actual researchers they're no longer skeptics.
The fact that the vast majority believes AGW is undeniably real and even some kind of immediate threat to our species makes it even more unlikely that any real evidence will ever be gathered. Why bother to gather evidence about something that the majority of the world has already decided is undeniably true? These days scientists (and I use that term loosely) focus on refining and reinforcing the argument in favor of AGW. Not so much on proving that it exists.
I think this is the one part of your post where I don't disagree with your reasoning as much as I think you're simply factually incorrect. AGW isn't some binary condition, scientists are constantly gathering new information trying to get a better understanding of AGW. I can't find the link but just this week there was a big disagreement between two top researchers about the scale of warming that would occur by the end of the century. As for the scientists focus, well if you're listening to the media or even the blogosphere of course you're only going to hear from the people spending their time on making the argument. But the overwhelming majority of climate researchers are doing what they're paid to do, research the climate, and only a small minority will have ever done any serious public communication.
btw
I am pro-GW (I am in favor of it).
...
GW heretics like myself OTOH, will not be convinced of AGW
So you think AGW is good, but you don't think it's happening? It sounds to me like you're just trying to be super contrarian.
I stole this Sig
"First, the concrete here-and-now communication strategy is probably a good one for those whose opinions aren't firmly set â" fully 75 percent of Americans, according to the polling. But second, that tack is unlikely to get anywhere with the 8 percent or so of highly-engaged Americans who reject the idea of a warming planet, and are highly motivated to disregard anything that says otherwise."
Quick quiz, is it just as valid if I say:
"First, the concrete here-and-now communication strategy is probably a good one for those whose opinions aren't firmly set â" fully 75 percent of Americans, according to the polling. But second, that tack is unlikely to get anywhere with the segment or so of highly-engaged Americans who accept the idea of a warming planet, and are highly motivated to disregard anything that says otherwise."?
-Styopa
Climate change is big business. Those in the profession who don't push the agenda end up hungry.
Either that, or the scientists overseeing grant funding are actually competent, and don't waste money on crackpots who fail to grasp even the most basic results in the discipline.
Nah. It's gotta be the conspiracy.
ISTM that if someone has to defend their beliefs by invoking a vast international conspiracy involving almost every scientist in the relevant fields, they should re-examine their beliefs.
I mean really, we *laugh* at people who claim that the moon landings were a hoax.
Yet many GW-deniers and evolution-deniers do in fact defend their views by invoking a vast international conspiracy involving almost every scientist in the relevant fields.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Most people aren't worried about cyclones, but they are worried about hurricanes.
Cyclones happen in the Pacific, and mostly affect island countries. I remember Cyclone Bola in the eighties.
The world does not warm evenly, due to the fact we have continents with odd shapes, water currents caused by that exagerate climate change in certain areas.. Maybe even the Gulf Stream could stop causing an ice age.
Agreed hs. We are going to have a bigger problem soon though. Thanks to trying to mitigate this CAGW, many countries are in a lot of Debt and have to borrow to pay their bills. When the money runs out, that will kill 100's of Millions or Billions of people before CAGW get's a look in. Already most people worry more about having employment and money than CAGW. Also the measures for combatting CAGW are very expensive (according to the boffins) for the amount of energy they produce AND they are not capable of providing Baseload Power!! Looks like the Greenies have leapt before they looked. Various Guv's around the World are complicit in this and deserve to be roundly Condemned.
Some people are because they think it means they can grow Mangoes in Montreal.
As for "inconvenience", famines are a bit more than that. Each major disaster in a food producing area really shows how fragile global food production really is and that it can't cope with a lot of changes at once.
That worked OK until the professional PR moved in a few years ago and built up a "debate" from nowhere.
He doesn't have to, because of the magical use of the meaningless term "Scientific consensus" by virtually all of the scientists and journalists writing about the field. What we're told, over and over, is that virtually all credible scientists are speaking with one voice.
The idea that science is somehow subject to a vote is even scarier than the idea that it should be subservient to religion.
We're not saying that reality is subject to a vote. We're saying "when in doubt, listen to the experts".
That can be problematic advice when the experts are strongly divided on the topic, but when there's near unanimity among all the experts in the world, sensible people listen to them.
And in fact people usually do. But curiously, when there's near unanimity among all the relevant scientists about a conclusion that some people don't like, some of those people excuse dismissing the opinions of the experts on the curious argument that "science isn't subject to a vote".
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
[Warmist] climatologists are modern day astrologers who can explain every single event ever observed, and ever to be observed with their pet hypothesis.
You honestly have no idea what you are talking about. Student psychologists take note, this is a /perfect/ example of the Dunning Kruger effect. Being too smart for you own good you have no idea how much you don't know, and how much you think you know that is plain wrong. Don't be surprised when intelligent people laugh behind your back.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Link to the "actual data", please?
Sorry, but we don't have the technology for HTML links to alternative realities.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
[Warmist] climatologists are modern day astrologers who can explain every single event ever observed, and ever to be observed with their pet hypothesis. Once you have a non-falsifiable hypothesis that asserts it is confirmed when it is both hot and cold and wet and dry, if people aren't discerning enough to realize you're playing the game of "heads I win, tails you lose", they can easily be fooled by the flimflam of people in lab coats
He said without a trace of irony. What's your pet theory that explains climate science? Your unfalsifiable "everyone is lying" theory? Oh right, you just gave it.
By my admittedly layman's interpretation of what read, the evidence for AGW has only been getting stronger over time
Perhaps because that's all that people are looking for. No matter what happens, it is inevitably spun as evidence for AGW.
Do you have the faintest idea how much prestige accrues to a scientist who overturns the common conception? Do we recognize the names of Einstein and Hubble because they were staunch supporters of the status quo?
If I was a climatologist and had actual evidence that global warming wasn't happening, I'd make myself famous in a heartbeat.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Or maybe it's because the politicos who are pushing the idea of global warming tend to lie with every fiber of their being
Scientists aren't by and large politicos. The people denying global warming aren't by and large scientists. In about equal proportions.
What were you saying again?
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
To be fair I found the link on Forbes and the Heartland Institute, and replicas from scientists in the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/science/02cold.html
How come the 8% always get first post on any climate story?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
He's just reflecting the emotional outburst of the original post.
You will note that there are people who give it but cannot take it. Generally these people have no idea that they are being assholes, and are then shocked when they get even the slightest hit of a suggestion that they aren't perfect.
Normally I'd say move along, there is nothing to see here, but clearly we have a mimophant, and this whole discussion is about motivated reasoning. So it's all pretty topical.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
I started out assuming the warmist side of this issue and stayed there many years, being big into natural sciences and earth sciences and such. It was just the general dickwad nature of the warmist argument: "sit down and shut up while scientists are speaking!" and the general fear of discussion that led me to investigate the matter for myself. Turns out I was wrong to be so trusting.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Maybe if the warmists tried persuasion, posting from their login account instead of calling everyone a scientifically illiterate jerkface dweeb as AC, they might be winning more people over to their point of view.
I'll be happy to call you a scientifically illiterate jerkface dweeb from my login account.
Does this help? You're welcome.
I'm under the impression that ACs are far more in favor of denying GW than acknowledging it. Maybe that's a false impression; it would be interesting if someone actually took the trouble to count. Maybe on an older story, where commenting is closed.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Actual data shows that temperatures in the last 20 years have DROPPED, not increased.
You should check into that claim. It is, of course, trivially wrong. At least your using multi-decade trends. Most of your intellectual brethren will only look back far enough to get the statistical trend they want: nothing. But on a 20 year time scale there is a slight warming trend with p
Look into it. Open you mind. If you are wrong about this, you may be wrong about... many things.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Likewise, documentation of the actions of others (which you state are a smear operation to lie about AGW) would be facts; your judgment as to what they are intended to accomplish is an opinion.
Here is some introductory reading, if you're actually interested.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
To them AGW is self-evident and the burden of proof should be on the other side to prove that it is not happening.
Also known as the precautionary principle. Formalized in risk analysis. Studied thoroughly by actuaries. And for them, money and their jobs are on the line -- not to be on one side of the argument, but to be *correct*.
/lives/ doing it.
And they spend their
But you know better right?
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Ah, yes, AGW and anti-AGW as religion. It is a perfect fit, and leaves no space for any alternative explanation or thought beyond the two accepted theories. It's like a group of cave-dwellers at war with another group of cave dwellers. One group says that they sky they have never seen is yellow, while the other says it is green. What do they do when someone actually goes and looks, and sees that it is sometimes blue, sometimes red, and sometimes black with little white sparkles?
Why, call the messenger a madman and execute him, of course.
because of the magical use of the meaningless term "Scientific consensus" by virtually all of the scientists and journalists writing about the field.
"Republic of science" is the tradition term for the same thing, if you want to complain about the idea itself then the person you're looking for is Karl Popper, who by an odd coincidence is often considered the "philosophical father of the modern scientific method".
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Correspondence bias. Look it up.
It shouldn't be big business. While some idiots in the oil industry are feeding pointless and expensive PR groups and paying for snake-oil salesman and third rate economists to fly around the world spouting bullshit, the others are just quietly making money from an oil addiction that isn't going to abate any time that the easy to extract stuff is available.
People can say what they like about how many problems come from burning oil or digging coal, it's not going to make it any easier to give up on them. We're seeing alternative energies where it makes sense but it would be very difficult to switch entirely to them. Nuclear? It doesn't run off magic beans that materialise in the reactor, you've got to get rock and do a shitload of energy consuming things to it before it's a fuel rod and the things you need to do are more conveniently done by stuff other than the electricity you get out of other fuel rods. Steelmaking is one example where the coal isn't just for heat so electricity alone won't do the job. Removing all dependance on fossil fuel would be very difficult so the companies that sell them are not going out of business any time soon no matter which way a debate would go. The luddite sideshow is just a waste of money from all directions.
Hmm, so they are not real scientists but economists are?
Sorry kid, it's been a real branch of science for over a century when the El Nino/La Nina and a pile of other interactions were worked out to the point where a wet or dry year is predictable. Currently they are just the soft target for luddites that used to go after biologists.
None of that is truly surprising, but it leads to a couple interesting points. First, the concrete here-and-now communication strategy is probably a good one for those whose opinions aren't firmly set — fully 75 percent of Americans, according to the polling. But second, that tack is unlikely to get anywhere with the 8 percent or so of highly-engaged Americans who reject the idea of a warming planet, and are highly motivated to disregard anything that says otherwise.
Nor, we can assume, will it get anywhere with the authors of the article.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Perhaps get less of your talking points from B movies?
You will be among the first to die, with that attitude. Humans cooperate for a reason, dipshit.
Which side gains more from lies, the luddites or the scientists?
You can make more money on speaking tours as a Sudoko puzzle writing climate science denier than a Nobel prize winner in any field of science.
You've outlined the problem well. Unfortunately there is an additional element which makes it even worse than you describe, the propensity of many well experienced and well informed scientists to forget the foundations of science, go beyond what the scientific method allows, and descend into personal interpretation. Even if well intentioned and from a credible source, it is false science when this happens.
Unfortunately it's all too common, and there is a reason for it: the climatologist's GCMs are not yet predictive with the required degree of statistical significance to be able to say "We have a theory of science which says X, and it has withstood N years of testing of hypotheses derived from X by M teams, and hence X is tentatively valid at this time."
Nothing like that can be stated about AGW because the GCMs (which are an expression of our theories) cannot predict the climate variations shown by our paleohistoric record accurately even for an unperturbed global circulation system, and so they are totally at a loss predicting it with scientific significance when it's massively perturbed by human intervention. This summarizes as "It's early days in climatology."
Given this state of affairs, the scientifically rigorous scientist can only say "Science doesn't yet know the answer because it cannot yet predict climate accurately" as a true expression of the scientific method. But people are just people, even scientists, so instead of this honest appraisal of the state of science in this area, they launch into personal interpretations which are not valid science at all.
There's all too much of this happening, on both sides of the argument, and it's sad. Scientists shouldn't be part of the debate at all, and to become engaged in it just makes their hands unsafe for operating the scientific method honestly.
I know right, posting an argument instead of just an insult. What a stupid moron!
Did you know there is something called "sulfur credits", they are part of the cap and trade system placed on sulfur emissions to reduce acid rain. The international system has been very successful in it's aim to cut acid rain and it's a credit to the US and RONALD REAGAN who personally pushed for it. Thatcher read Chemistry at Oxford before becoming a politician and was one (if not the) first world leader to call for emission controls on CO2, she was right behind Reagan's enthusiasm to curb acid rain. Shame today's Republican leaders make Reagan and Thatcher look like a pair of radical tree-huggers.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
World gets warmer, global warming.
World gets colder, global warming.
World stays about the same, global warming.
Himalayan glaciers are melting, global warming. Himalayan glaciers aren't actually melting, global warming.
When your theory is able to equally explain any set of circumstances, you don't have a theory, you have phlogoston.
What about non-melting glaciers? Glaciers in the Himalayas were said to be melting, and that was blamed on AGW. When it turned out they weren't, well, AGW.
Those people laughing behind their backs don't really know much either. If they did, they wouldn't be laughing.
Or it could be that you are a full of shit denialist. Sorry the time for engagement is over. You have a first amendment right to be a lying sack of shit. I have a first amendment right to tell the truth, and call you a lying sack of shit. And I don't care how many asshole moderates push my karma down.
And to think, some people wonder why more people don't see things their way... ;)
Consider the consensus on the directions of up and down for example. Is it scary that everyone agrees on those?
He lives in Australia, you insensitive clod.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
World gets warmer, global warming.
World gets colder, global warming.
World stays about the same, global warming.
Himalayan glaciers are melting, global warming. Himalayan glaciers aren't actually melting, global warming.
When your theory is able to equally explain any set of circumstances, you don't have a theory, you have phlogoston.
Actually, global warming isn't able to explain some of the circumstances you mention. However, the fact that some of those circumstances don't actually exist pretty much excuses it from needing to explain them.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Maybe you're not a yankee, but actually, we do have this thing called the 1st amendment that means that we can *say* whatever we like.
That is a universal right - what you cannot do is to say things which are factually wrong and expect to not be called on it. As you already know.
As for "lies, misinformation and scaremongering", wouldn't that be what people who are asserting that the world is going to come to a terrible end because of human emissions of a trace gas measured in parts per million?
Can you explain (in detail) why CO2 and methane being trace gases would make them less likely to affect climate? I ask because your assertion is counter intuitive.
I mean, look, if you want to call AGW skeptics liars, and misinformers, I can understand your motivated reasoning to, and you might even be able to make a cogent case for it, but scaremongering? Scaremongering? If anything, skeptics are *refuting* the "imminent doom unless you repent" cries of alarmists.
I said no such thing. I said that denialists spread misinformation and lies - deliberate lies, at least in part. Including the lie that they are sceptics. And they are scaremongers: included in their lies is the assertion that a worldwide cabal of scientists have been colluding for 150 years in order to establish a new world order. And the constant changes of position. It is quite normal for such people to assert several contradictory positions at the same time. They must not truly accept both positions. And the "we'll all be doooooooooommed" if we move to emit a little bit less CO2 and plant a few trees.
It was going so well, and then you blew it.
It's not political until the scientist advocates taking action to do something about it. Really, there isn't any possibility of doubt that enough CO2 would increase the planet's surface temperature (look at Venus). There is plenty of room to doubt that AGW might become a human (or planetary) crisis in our lifetime. Even if you accept that we are headed down this path, there's a huge debate remaining on what we can reasonably do to prevent it (if anything) and whether the benefits of diverting those resources outweigh the costs of what we stop doing instead.
Personally, I have next to no doubt that we'll see irrefutable evidence of global temperature increases attributed to human causes with a decade or two. I tend not to be as alarmist as most scientists in the field (it wouldn't be the first time that the people closest to an issue magnified the prognosis), but I wouldn't place a large stake against it, either. I have moderate skepticism over whether AGW will impact the planet as rapidly or severely as some of the forecasts. I have a high level of skepticism that any of the proposed measures (such as a Kyoto accord) are going to deflect this outcome if we are indeed already on this path. I have an extreme level of skepticism that radical reshaping of the earth's economy and geopolitical landscape is a prudent response, even if there's a theoretical hope we could actually succeed in averted catastrophic climate change. There's a fairly large scope for messing up civilization by engaging in radical politics. Am I the only person who worries about WW III resulting from attempting to shut the carbon economy down and not succeeding?
I am also fairly certain that we're about thirty years away from understanding climate science to the level required to confidently plan for the magnitude of the interventions that might be required. A five year old can point to a drowning man, but can't swim out to pull him in. Our climate science is like that five year old.
I don't even know where to classify myself as a denier or a believer. I seem to suffer from skepticism spectrum disorder. Surely I must be mentally ill if I can't be pigeon holed on one side or the other.
How come, when we have one or two cold days, all the nutjobs come out and say "SEE, HOW CAN THERE BE GLOBAL WARMING WHEN IT WAS REALLY COLD THIS WEEKEND?!".
There are plenty of nutjobs on each side. It seems irrefutable that global warming exists. The only concern is what the cause is and whether it is just a natural part of the cycle that we aren't actually impacting. This is all compounded by the assholes turning the global-warming thing into a cottage industry with the whole "carbon credits" scam and other "green initiatives" that are less good-natured and more cynical and preying on people.
Either way, I don't really give a fuck. I'll be dead before any of it matters. As long as I'm not up to my neck in a melted iceberg in the next few decades, I'm fine.
All other fields have means to test the results and prove them false.
So does climatology. But the argument is that all the climatologists are in on a conspiracy to ignore or falsify the evidence.
Why can't physicists, biologists, astronomers, geologists, etc. do the same?
As a side question, could you explain what's "liberal" about psychology or climatology?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I hear you, and I been through that phase. Now I honestly look at the mess of politics and laughter is the only way to take its stomach churning stupidity. I once read about a politician who was cool with the fundamental irrationality of the world, and he laughed a lot too. I guess that's an aspiration of mine.
/could/ successfully be used against AGW denial could equally be used to promote any stupid idea. The truth of things is a little too complex for open debate, which is why there is so little of it -- even in academia -- and why Leo Strauss so favoured the noble lie.
About 10 years ago I worked out that pretty much everything I knew was wrong. I just heard something I believed from someone else who heard something they believed etc. I thought it was a joke that people believe in the immaculate conception of the virgin Mary, but now I realise that some people really experience the world that way. That is when I stopped knowing and started listening, and really tried to understand different perspectives from their own point of view.
There is stage beyond that, where you just realise stupidity is stupidity. There are many great politicians who really should be doing the job they do, and they are matched by equal numbers of lunatics and egomaniacs. If the crazy could be put in the bag, it would have been done a long time ago.
Any tool you use to deal with a madman, the madman will then learn and use it as a tool to propagate their madness, quite unselfconsciously. That is why movement conservatives are going around talking about arithmetic after Clintons speech at the DNC. Any rhetoric that
Perhaps one day I'll see the wisdom of not laughing behind someone's back, but people accept the level of reality they are willing to bear, and laughter can cut straight through that. It can drive the deluded into an even deeper delusion, but it may also be the only message a person can hear. If it sounds a little 6th gradish, then consider that an anger response is the greatest predictor (by far) that someone will share something with someone else. Politics really is the way it is for a reason.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
*shrug* Let the world BURN! I could give two shits. Now if you excuse me, I'm going to perform do-nuts with my car just to piss people like you off.
Be careful of who you tread on!!! Be very very careful!
Life is not for the lazy.
Well lets take your assertions and look. Taking Al Gore's hockey stick graph, we should have uncontrollable warming now, we don't. As a matter of fact I saw a story here 6 months ago that said US just faced its warmest winter ever. I looked into it, they IGNORED Alaska, which had its COLDEST winter ever. So the proof of the hockey stick graph required ignoring a LARGE portion of the US in order to match up. When you include the rest of the US and the rest of the world the summer proved no warmer. If it were true and provable, then we wouldn't have to rely on stories like this that cherry picked small regions to "prove" things and requiring the readers to not look elsewhere for other data.
So, based on the "claim" from the hockey stick graph, it appears false that CO2 claimed on that graph will cause runaway warming. Is the graph wrong? Is the measurements wrong? Are the models wrong? I don't know because every time its brought up for discussion all I hear are a bunch of bat shit crazy AWGers calling everyone else names instead of discussing. I'm so sick of hearing them call everyone else names I no longer care about them.
And this is the problem. Both sides have an agenda that isn't necessarily simply "lets make the world a better place", so both sides will take the facts and filter (and/or outright lie about) them to suit their purpose and then throw raw abuse at anyone who disagrees. Not a good environment for a rational discussion, but not entirely unexpected. My rule of thumb is that as soon as you start personally attacking the person making the argument (eg x is a sheep who is just following the crowd, they must be really stupid!!) and not the argument itself then you have lost, even if I agree with the essence of your argument.
that not only is it occuring, but it's perfectly normal and to be expected.
Hurricane + flood + drought + tornado + superultramegastorm Sandy + record high temperature at a given location + record low temperature at a given location + all of the other weather in between taken over a long enough time period = climate.by definition. How they change over time in number, length and strength is an indication of climate change.
Fortunately the validity of the scientific theory of Global Climate Change doesn't rest on whether, or not, Black Parrot provides a citation for every comment he/she makes on Slashdot.
Warning: This sig is not thread safe. For more information see Slashdot's sig policy.
Oh please, humans can do practically nothing to affect the humidity (water vapor level) of the atmosphere. The planet is 75% covered by water, a ready source of humidity. Any excess humidity we add quickly* precipitates out to rebalance the level, any humidity we remove will be replaced quickly from the vast sources of water. Temperature is the primary controller of humidity and water vapor levels in the atmosphere.
*By quickly I mean in a matter of days, maybe a week or two.
In fact, Earth has been warming for 10,000 years since the last ice age.
I see this stated all the time but it's not true. Temperatures reached a peak during the Holocene Climatic Optimum about 8,000 years ago and have gnerally been slowly declining since then.
Not every arguments is subjective. Argue all you like about which colour looks best in your bathroom. However, if you try to counter the objective facts of climate change with rhetoric, ad-hominem and misdirection, you can expect others to call you on it. Myths are not the equal of facts.
That's a good way to describe it. Climate is the sum total of weather over a period of time and weather varies around the mean climate. If the the center of the weather bell curve shifts that means climate has changed.
Fortunately the validity of the scientific theory of Global Climate Change doesn't rest on whether, or not, Black Parrot provides a citation for every comment he/she makes on Slashdot.
Surely my use of a flying car analogy makes up for that.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Either way, I don't really give a fuck. I'll be dead before any of it matters.
Don't count on that if you're going to live for more than a decade more. It's already probably a factor in rising food prices and the cost of extreme weather events.
Ah, I understand your clarification. Consider yourself called on it :)
Because in comparison to the other greenhouse gases (not to mention other climate driving variables), they simply cannot compete. Of course for both methane and CO2, the problem is that we don't simply have static sources and sinks -> they all interplay in such a complex manner, one cannot simply assert that a single variable drives the entire complex equation.
And that's *exactly* what someone who has used motivated reasoning to come to their position would say about the other side.
Ah, interesting - I hadn't thought of that one. It's certainly a neat parallel to the scaremongering of alarmists, gives it a nice symmetry I suppose :)
Yeah, but tmosley, at least Stirling is willing to give up his anonymity and insult without hiding his identity! :)
Exactly *which one* doesn't it explain?
Or, more to the point, what observations do you believe would falsify the novel idea that human CO2 emissions are going to cause catastrophic global climate change?
Food for thought: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/07/a-brief-history-of-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-record-breaking/
a) when AGW alarmists see record heat waves, it's because of global warming. when they see record cold snaps, it's because of global warming. then they move to "climate change" (which, always does, so that's like saying "I'm right as long as something that always happens keeps happening"), and then the record does something silly like exhibit a zero trend for 16 years.
b) AGW isn't falsifiable because any observation of global average CO2 and global average temperature can be explained away with an ad hoc special pleading. If the melting glaciers *prove* AGW, but advancing glaciers don't *refute* it, then you've simply done a "heads I win, tails you lose".
Continental drift *is* falsifiable -> find a seam of rock stretching from south america to africa that is all of exactly the same age (given that our current hypothesis of continental drift depends on the mid atlantic creating new rock as those two continents drifted apart).
Hrm...funny, I would've thought that keynesian economics fails every single time it is tried anywhere, yet people still believe in it :)
Here's the thing about science that you don't quite get - it isn't science unless you have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis. Thanks to Karl Popper, we've got a way of discerning between astrology and astronomy.
Isn't your response also a perfect example of the Dunning Kruger effect? :)
I mean, really, there are people out there who *actually believe* that we have sophisticated enough GCMs to accurately model all major natural climactic influences...I mean, they *really* believe that they have got a good bead on all the myriad possible natural influences...can you imagine such hubris? :)
That's the beauty of this whole study - it applies to *both* sides of intelligent zealots :)
Here's the rub, though, we can discern the science from the pseudo-science by looking for the falsifiable hypothesis :)
Mod parent up - I don't agree with microbox on AGW, but he's hit the nail on the head when he notes that rhetoric cuts both ways.
Of course, I'm a particular fan of Popper, so I've got at least some framework I'd use to discern between which side to land on, but I'm sure other people of differing opinions have convinced themselves they have as well. While it might be an extreme view, I can't consider something unfalsifiable as science - even if it might be true. I mean, I believe in monogamy as the highest pinnacle of what a healthy relationship should be. It's not a falsifiable belief, so I won't consider it science, but I'll assert there's a very good chance it's true.
Now, maybe if an AGW proponent actually made *that* argument ("look, I know this isn't scientific, but there's a good chance it's true"), we could start grabbing expert statisticians to help mediate the dispute on probability, but let's face it, there isn't a single climatologist out there who is truly a master of statistics and probability theory (lord knows you can't get by nowadays without specializing).
I used to believe that climate change was a real threat: positive feedback loops, massive release of methane from clathrates and frozen soil, flooding, etc. I used to argue that emission of large amounts of CO2 was a dangerous global experiment with unforeseeable consequences.
After reading up on the details (including the IPCC reports) and climate history, I changed my mind and I am not worried anymore. I believe global warming is happening, and it will have some costs and negative effects. But the horror scenarios people have been painting have no basis in reality.
And a lot of the ways in which (solid) climate change science is presented and used to justify policy is manipulative and misleading; these people have done a huge disservice to science and the credibility of scientists.
decade on decade cooling *is* climate
decade on decade staying the same *is* climate
there is no statistical trend in extreme weather events that correlates to human CO2 emissions, or heck, even to global CO2 levels in general. In fact, cyclonic activity has *dropped* (which, if you read some AGW papers, is expected because the temperature gradient between the poles and equator is reduced...of course others expect more cyclonic activity, so no matter what happens, someone can pull a paper out and say "see, global warming!").
As for record breaking, check this out: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/07/a-brief-history-of-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-record-breaking/
> I think it's important to understand that for decades AGW has convinced...
No. When I had my graduate-level class on the physics of weather, almost half of the time was spent talking about global cooling. One of the speakers had been quoted on the cover of (IIRC) Time about the problem of global cooling. The decision by a few politicians to push the AGW agenda is more recent than what you claim.
When was this? Global cooling has NEVER been scientific consensus, and was only taken seriously for a short period in the 70's. As for the politicians trying to push the AGW agenda, to the very limited extent that has happened its been very muted, do you really think politicians are chomping at the bit to be perceived as adding taxes and killing jobs?
I stole this Sig
So do I you idiot that is pretending to be far to stupid to spot an analogy when it's shoved up your arse covered in tabasco sauce. In the right frame of reference up is up no matter where on earth you are standing, but it doesn't matter, because I'm using an analogy, which should be so incredibly fucking obvious that you cannot possibly be as stupid as you pretend yet survive to an age where you can learn enough English to be able to type the words above.
There is plenty of evidence that human activity is to blame, you just choose to ignore it.
Early in the Earth's history the Sun was only about 70% as strong as it is now (that works out to a 1% increase every 150 million years). So even though CO2 levels may have been higher they are partially balanced out by a cooler Sun. Life is adapted to the climate it forms and lives in. If the climate changes significantly it may take a long time (on human time scales) for it to readapt. Meanwhile there may be chaos.
Hrm...interesting.
How big of an area, and how long of a time?
Can we define "climate" as the weather conditions prevailing over my house, for a month?
Can we define "climate" as the weather conditions prevailing over the earth, for a million years?
Bonus points - when we talk about the global "climate", is that anything that any organism ever experiences?
The primary effect of AGW is indeed that it is getting warmer all over the globe. That does have some secondary effects, but they are not as important. Secondly, your assumption that weather or climate is something stable that can be "destabilized" is wrong. Even without AGW, we are always at risk for rapid warming or rapid cooling. AGW drives this change in a particular direction, but that's not necessarily bad. Warmer is better than colder.
I mean, really, there are people out there who *actually believe* that we have sophisticated enough GCMs to accurately model all major natural climactic influences...I mean, they *really* believe that they have got a good bead on all the myriad possible natural influences...can you imagine such hubris?
To paraphrase Steve Schneider, climate science is a systems science. Understanding the climate is like understanding the human body, which is also a system. We know a lot about blood, and dna, and lipids, and antibodies, and neurotransmitters... but you will always be able to find something unknown. But that doesn't take away from the broad brushstrokes of what is known. For example, the inability to reverse engineer the vision system does not imply that we don't know that eyes are involved in vision.
/believes/ an AGW. There are mental health professionals who believe in demonic possession as a proportion.
Climate science is on that footing, which is why pretty much every climate scientist
I have only a moderate amount of expertise in the direct matters, but I certainly know enough to recognise the thoroughness of climate scientists in general, and substance to their arguments. What is more telling about the "debate" is the vapidity of the arguments of "critics", and the fact that they keep flogging the same dead horses again and again. Their arguments sometimes have surface validity but rarely more. Even someone like Pat Michaels, certainly one of the most sophisticated critics, has nothing of substance that I have seen. Watch this congressional testimony -- starts about 1:30min in.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
No, economists aren't scientists.
Now name a single GCM that can model PDO/ENSO. Yes, you can look at the oceans and predict the weather from the short to even medium term, but until a GCM can actually predict El Nino/La Nina before they happen, we've got no reason to believe they can make any climate claims on any time range.
I mean, think about it - El Nino/La Nina is one of the most famously studied and observed effects that has *incredible* climactic effect. If we can't even model that one accurately, how can we possibly hope that we've accounted for every other major natural driver of climate?
I should have been more precise, but I think it's a fair assumption that if he's in favour of GW he's also in favour of AGW (at least in the context he used it).
I stole this Sig
All of those things change over time, both up and down. Climate always changes, and it always has. Even more unfortunately, it always will :)
Of course, more problematic is deciding what particular percentage of blame human CO2 emissions should be assigned. Maybe SuperUltraMegaStorm Sandy was 2cm higher because of humans, or maybe it was only .002mm higher because of humans. Can we blame 100% of the storm surge on humanity? Probably not.
I agree entirely. Fun fact about the human body, it has a complex system of negative feedbacks to maintain homeostasis...and I'll warrant that the same thing *must* be true about climate, given the narrow range of climate the earth has gone through (even between ice ages and thermal optimums, you're talking a fairly narrow band).
Now, if you were to try to apply a simple physics model (like CO2's greenhouse effect in a laboratory), and apply it to the human body, you'd run into real problems. Yes, the application of heat to a solid should warm that entire solid, starting from the point of heating, and progressing outward from there. But if you put your hand in a tub of hot water, how long will it take before your other hand has warmed because of that?
When you study a system, especially a complex system, it defies imagination that you can tweak a single variable and control the entire system. So climate science, as practiced by those proponents of AGW who believe that human CO2 emissions are now the thermostat of the planet, is more like homeopathy than pharmacology.
Their arguments are empty if they're arguing a non-falsifiable hypothesis. And when you get someone like Michael Mann who uses data *upside down*, and then brushes off the correction as being meaningless to the final conclusions of his paper, you *know* they're on thin ice :)
Yes, there are some definite whacko skeptics, but there are also a bunch of whacko warmists too :)
It's the old Carter vs Reagan problem and a bit of a trap by the PR folks. Carter campaigned by arguing that Reagan was a dangerous man that would start a nuclear war while Reagan just sat there acting innocent. Carter then looked like more of an idiot than he may or may not have been, and Reagan won by a landslide (which means a full quarter of all US citizens that were qualified to vote picked him, while the other 3/4 of lazy fuckers that couldn't be bothered to do their duty and vote one way or another stayed at home, just like in many other US elections). To an extent some of the things Carter accused Reagan of came true, but that didn't matter, the deed was done and Carter is remembered as a failure.
Move on to today and there's slick confidence tricksters like Viscount Monckton making the wildest and nastiest claims with such a buildup that it all sounds quite reasonable, while if his opponents point out his false claims of a cure for AIDS and other things in a long career as a confidence trickster it just comes across as arrogant putdowns. Pointing out what Koch and the Heartland Institute are doing just comes across as a weird conspiracy theory even though it's obvious, out in the open and real, so people that attack it lose credibility.
In the USA at least the anti-science group have put in so much PR money that many are convinced that the scientists are wrong. It's starting to spread from there as some resource companies in other places fund PR to pretend the experts are wrong and whoever splashes around the most money is right.
I was there, and I was a Democrat. Carter was one of the most disastrous presidents the US has ever had. His economic ideas were directly responsible for a huge recession that cost my parents their house and forced me out of my home at 12 years old (28% mortgage rates on my parents' variable rate mortgage? Are you fucking kidding?).
Reagan was a dangerous man. Reagan WAS fucking crazy. Fortunately for us, a Fucking Crazy president was just what we needed at that time to scare the SHIT out of anybody who might make trouble. We elected him and the world shut the fuck up for long enough for us to get our shit back together. The only guy stupid enough to try to be more crazy was Qaddafi, and that didn't end well for Qaddafi.
Funny thing: Reagan probably didn't even know where he was the whole time, and he was STILL a better president than Carter. Toward the end the actor came out and he was acting as if he was President on a set when actually he WAS the president.
/Fun times. Scared the shit out of me. I was in the US military at the time. Spent the whole time thinking the End was near. But it worked out and I didn't have to go to some far place and meet unpleasant people who wanted to kill me.
//Love Carter's work since. But as a President he was a disaster.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Think of it this way:
Humans cause global warming with CO2 and similar.
a) Do nothing, climate gets worse, costs of a lot of money to adapt and repair damages.
b) Change our energy sources and energy use, costs money to do up front, long term gains only.
Humans do not cause global warming
a) Do nothing, no upfront costs, no long term gains
b) Change our energy sources and energy use, costs money to do up front, reduces pollution, extends life expectancy (due to reduced pollution), reduces dependence on foreign energy sources.
In my opinion, even if humans have absolutely no impact on climate, I still want us to change our energy sources and energy use - the long term gains from doing so are very much worth it.
Carbon comes from the ground. Volcanoes year after year emit carbon and in the past there has been extreme volcanism emitting large amounts of carbon. Venus is an example of how much carbon an Earth sized planet emits.
On Earth we have biological and geological sequestrating of carbon. All the limestone and related minerals were created from atmospheric carbon. This works through weathering and with increasing heat, rain fall often increases causing more weathering and more sequestrating of carbon. In the long run this will limit the effects of increased CO2.
Biological sequestrating has also removed perhaps halve of all the carbon that has been released over 4.5 million years. Releasing this carbon as we're doing increases the CO2 level of the atmosphere and CO2 being a greenhouse gas, why would it not cause warming?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Also known as the precautionary principle
When I hear people talk seriously about the precautionary principle, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Some examples:
"Should we use the precautionary principle in our plans?" Precautionary principle says no; there might be some unforeseen risk... (READ: The precautionary principle fails its own set of conditions)
"(pretend it's the year 1800) Should we let blacks vote?" Precautionary principle says no; there might be some unforeseen risk. And on and on...
Fortunately the validity of the scientific theory of Global Climate Change doesn't rest on whether, or not, Black Parrot provides a citation for every comment he/she makes on Slashdot.
Actually, it does.
This absence of evidence is evidence of absence of validity.
And your answer is evidence of your incompetence.
But why stop at evidence? I can prove that I am right:
http://kim.oyhus.no/AbsenceOfEvidence.html
It was done a fucking century ago. You seem to be implying that because it can't be predicted earlier in a season than it is currently predicted that somehow all predictions are worthless. That's an interesting shift of the goalposts, but that only tells us things about yourself and is useless in any sort of serious discussion unless you are aiming to make yourself the focus of the discussion.
He appears to have attacked the argument just fine for the broad majority of the post. One measly sentence at the end of the post doesn't suddenly invalidate it because it happened to be a snide remark.
It is the anthropogenic variety that is questioned. I have a VERY hard time believing that anywhere near enough evidence has been collected to determine that humans are responsible for the GW.
Which one you have difficulties with:
- CO2 is a "green house" gas, it traps heat - Humans are pumping it to the atmosphere 40 billion tonnes per year
The logical step from those two to the Antropogenic in AGW is so small and obvious that when Arrhenius figured out the first one and knew the second one 120 years ago, he could make it without any evidence or measurement.
In the realm of physics it's easy to figure things out way before you can get any evidence...
He appears to have attacked the argument just fine for the broad majority of the post. One measly sentence at the end of the post doesn't suddenly invalidate it because it happened to be a snide remark.
Try having a rational discussion with someone then finish by calling them an idiot, and let me know how that works out for you. See if you can guess what they'll pay more attention to. An online conversation won't turn out much differently (evidence: this thread). The post isn't so much invalidated as ignored.
As it happens, your claim is a perfect example of cognitive bias, also known as wilful stupidity. Specifically, it demonstrates the use of a red herring: yes, climate is extremely complicated, but no, that doesn't mean it's not subject to basic thermodynamics. Making it harder for heat to escape but not enter a system makes the system warmer, completely regardless of how that heat gets distributed within the system.
Trying to pretend there's two equivalent sides is another example of cognitive bias, specifically false equivalence. There isn't: there's science on one side and people who think reality will go away if they ignore it long enough on the other.
Have fun falsifying thermodynamics.
Also, if you're embarassed enough about the bullshit you post to defend your position to feel the need to end every sentence with a smiley, perhaps you should rethink it.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Global cooling has never been the consensus, in the 70s most climate scientists were talking about global warming. Seriously just go read a few of the journals and you will see this to be the case. Time magazines report on science is so poor I wouldn't wipe my arse with it and risk the bullshit stain.
Global cooling is covered in physics classes because the mechanism is easy to describe using basic thermodynamics and fluid dynamics. It makes an interesting example. It is also interesting because it shows us that things like snowball earth occur in our simplest models.
Don't know where you got this claim from (Penn and Teller maybe?) but seriously, stop watching the movies, stop reading the blogs, stop watching the mainstream media, turn off the radio, stop reading the newspapers and go pick up the journals. You only need to read about 15 papers to have a pretty strong understanding of the case for anthropogenic climate change and even if you aren't convinced at least you will be making informed arguments criticising the actual science instead of the pop culture version.
what you cannot do is to say things which are factually wrong and expect to not be called on it.
Ah, I understand your clarification. Consider yourself called on it :)
Trolling?
My dear fellow. You disappoint me. In the past you were at least able to construct a coherent (if flawed) argument. What happened to you?
Can you explain (in detail) why CO2 and methane being trace gases would make them less likely to affect climate?
Because in comparison to the other greenhouse gases (not to mention other climate driving variables), they simply cannot compete. Of course for both methane and CO2, the problem is that we don't simply have static sources and sinks -> they all interplay in such a complex manner, one cannot simply assert that a single variable drives the entire complex equation.
Well, if you think that there is a better model for the current climate change, then feel free to tell us, in detail, what that model is, along with working. For instance, if you think some other driver (forcing) is causing the current climate change, what is that driver? Is it natural changes in sinks? And show working.
I said no such thing. I said that denialists spread misinformation and lies
And that's *exactly* what someone who has used motivated reasoning to come to their position would say about the other side.
Facts are facts. Therefore, if you wanted to prove that what I called lies are in fact truths, you would tell us how - rather than some absurd ad-hominem.
Again, this is really poor work from you. I expected better.
they are scaremongers: included in their lies is the assertion that a worldwide cabal of scientists have been colluding for 150 years in order to establish a new world order.
Ah, interesting - I hadn't thought of that one.
It's certainly worth considering whether your argument is plausible before making it.
> When you study a system, especially a complex system, it defies imagination that you can tweak a single variable and control the entire system.
So, to continue with the example of the day: we'll reduce the amount of oxygen available to a human, and see if that has any effect. It's just a single variable, after all; surely it can't control the entire system.
There's an argument to be made about percentages, and whether CO2 in the atmosphere is more like oxygen to a human, or maybe more like nitrogen, but that's not the argument you presented.
Let me summarize the debate. One side believes there is sufficient evidence for theory X. The other side believes there is insufficient evidence. The side that believes there is sufficient evidence believes that the evidence is so overwhelming that to be skeptical of it is of the same order as being skeptical of gravity.
And this is the problem in this debate. One side thinks that the debate is primarily about whether or not humans are causing the earth to warm. The other side thinks the debate is primarily about how much power the government has to regulate economic activity. Those who support the AGW theory generally think that the problem is so bad that the government has to create new bureaucracies to regulate all types of economic activity in the minutest detail. The other side argues that the evidence is not strong enough to support such a drastic expansion of government bureaucracy. The latter would be better off arguing that even if those government bureaucracies were created it would not actually address the issue anyway.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
How often do the climate scientists say that? It is usually just some guy off the street. Think of weather as a bell curve, of probability. The seasons average temperatures are in the middle the more extremes are on either end. What global warming has done is shift that bell curve to the hotter direction a bit. We will still get very cold days/seasons and very hot days/seasons but the overall average will be higher. (A few more hot days then cold ones)
The real problem is the people who disagree with global warming, and see the mounting evidence against them, assume that there is some conspiracy, as them making up fake information to push some deeper agenda. Unfortunately my father is one of them and he gave me this long lecture about the evil UN Socialist Agenda 21. So I wasn't too keen on it so I looked it up. After reading it I could see how my father would be frightened of it. Because most of the information is about curving global warming, if you don't think global warming is an issue, then all those suggestions would seem stupid unless there was some grand conspiracy.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
reinforcing. People take every fact that it is consistent with their view and add it to their collection. They ignore the ones that are not consistent. People do it all the time to preserve their sense of identity. There need be no other motive (economic or otherwise). Karl Popper ridicules this kind of thinking in scientists. If scientists do it, it must be far more common for the rest of us to do it.
"New York", yeah right.. that's in "America", right?
Well *I* learned in school..
Amerika Gibt Es Nicht (Peter Bichsel; in German)
So who cares that these fictional peoples suffer from confirmation bias.
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
No one denies that climate changes -- no one. I can walk outside and show you the geologic evidence of our last ice age, and boy, has the climate sure changed since then. The climate has also been much hotter, much wetter, and with far higher levels of CO2 than today, and there is plenty of geologic evidence for that, too.
The question is whether people are causing warming, not whether the climate is changing.
Call me unconvinced. I have yet to hear any theory that adequately explains both the changes we see in the geologic record, and the changes reportedly caused by Man. It takes a huge amount of warming to move from an ice age to today. Where did that warming come from, if not from humans, and may it, not humans, be responsible for any warming we are seeing today?
These don't seem to be unreasonable questions to me, and telling me that 97% of climate scientists think the world is warming is irrelevant and doesn't answer the question.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
b) Why do you think what climatologists say isn't falsifiable?
It isn't falsifiable because if they come up with a theory that matches the recorded data, there is no experiment that you can repeat in order to falsify their claims.
As long as everyone writing "scientific" articles and "research" get the basics of climate all wrong, everyone is going to be driven to erroneous beliefs.
For example, the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are current levels + C02 production (gas / oil / forest burning) + CO2 absorption (Oceans, for example) + CO2 consumption (trees). Playing with one factor is meaningless. We can make cars more efficient, but if trucks and ocean carriers are horribly inefficient, the total emissions are not going to be reduced at all. And letting people clear cut and burn the forests and jungles is a double whammy: putting CO2 in the air and removing C02 consumers. The solution is simple. Require all car / truck / boat / train manufacturers to plant twice as many trees as is necessary to consume the CO2 they emit. Require all gas, coal, and oil producers to plant twice as many trees as is necessary to consume the CO2 they emit. Require all power plants to plant twice as many trees as is necessary to consume the CO2 they emit. Require all tree cutters to plant twice as many trees as they cut. Require all clear cutters to replant or plant far faster than the 10 to 20 years they currently wait. Require all trucks / trains / ocean carriers to be more efficient. This would reduce the CO2 levels.
wake up and hold your nose
You didn't look up correspondence bias. Fail.
You SAY that, but humidity levels around cities are much, MUCH higher than they are elsewhere, and our cities continue to expand all over the place. Whence cometh heat islands?
Continuous, increasing output of water vapor can and will increase atmospheric heat retention. You, and your moderators, don't seem to understand that humidity is an EQUILIBRIUM, and as with any equilibrium, it can be forced one way or another. If the force is removed, then sure, it will rapidly return to its previous state. Well, when is the last time we stopped having paved over cities or emitting water vapor from all forms of combustion? NEVER. It is EXACTLY THE SAME as what AGW claim for CO2, except at a shorter time scale, and several orders of magnitude higher effect.
Just because you haven't heard anyone talking about it, you dismiss it out of hand. It's almost as if you have an anti-CO2 agenda.
It seems that some of you missed the title of the article. Before you reply to a post, ask yourself, "Does this post sound like its coming from some one with strong climate change opinions?" Chances are, if its a post on slashdot, its a post from one of the highly-engaged Americans who's "highly motivated to disregard anything that says otherwise".
Right, so you are able to equally explain any and all sets of circumstances with your theory. What does that say about your theory?
Ah, I see the problem. You've mixed up the "local absence of evidence" with the "global absence of evidence". Allow me to explain:
A "global absence of evidence" is where a person makes a statement for which no evidence supporting their claim exists.
A "local absence of evidence" is where a person makes a statement for which evidence supporting that claim exists, however they did not provide the evidence (or a reference to where that evidence can be obtained from).
To demonstrate the difference I can make the following statement in a Slashdot comment:
"The Earth revolves around the Sun."
The above statement is obviously true, but I have provided no evidence nor any references to evidence. In the example above there is a "local absence of evidence", but if we go to the scientific journals we will find that there is an abundance of supporting evidence is available. The same is true of Black Parrot's comment; the evidence supporting Black Parrot's statements exists, it just wasn't provided in this thread.
To that end I suggest you start looking for evidence at RealClimate. The articles are well written and frequently cite papers published in scientific journals.
Warning: This sig is not thread safe. For more information see Slashdot's sig policy.
GW deniers give a bad name to skeptics. Let's pause for a moment and remember the times where skepticism has proven to be perfectly justified:
- Paul Ehrlich's malthusian predictions, which at the time were widely shared
- WMD in Iraq
- String theory
- Artificial Intelligence promises in the late 1970s
A good scientist should be, by nature, a skeptic. However a good scientist should also be ready to bow before the evidence and put skepticism aside. Particularly given that in most cases the prevailing scientific theory is generally correct.
I think what you mean is "I need to buy more cold weather gear"
Whoa. Local climactic effect? As in ocean temperatures in the pacific effecting the entire north american continent, and beyond? Perhaps your definition of "local" differs from mine :)
Both pacific and atlantic sea surface temperatures cycle in ways that significantly effect *global* climate, in all kinds of regions in significant and fairly predictable ways (once we've observed the cycle in effect). However, not a single GCM have any sort of skill at predicting upcoming PDO/ENSO/ADO cycles, nor do any GCMs have any sort of skill at hindcasting them. Missing such a huge portion of climate influence cuts these GCMs to the core.
I'm not sure either but I think Apple has a patent on rounded ones.
I'm not implying anything - I'm stating flatly that no GCM in existence can either forecast or hindcast ocean oscillations with any skill at all beyond the immediate and very short term. Assuming that they can make predictions 10, 20 and 100 years out without being able to accurately model ENSO/PDO/ADO is silly at best, given the enormous impact those ocean oscillations have on global climate.
It's not a shift of the goalposts, its an exhibition of the complete failure of GCMs to accurately model *known* natural global climate drivers.
Actually, it means that you can't model it with basic thermodynamics, so making the naive assertion that "CO2 added to a beaker in a lab absorbs more heat means that CO2 added to the atmosphere must also heat it up by the same proportions as happened in the beaker" is, as you put it, willful stupidity :)
You cannot simply claim "thermodynamics is true, therefore human emissions of a gas measured in parts per million in the atmosphere must definitively be the cause of catastrophic global warming". Why not just say that your hypothesis is obviously certain because the speed of light has a maximum, or because hydrogen has a single proton - deriving your conclusion from the mere existence of a basic law is a jump of another sort entirely :)
The NOAA claimed that *any* observed period of 15 years of no statistically significant warming excluded their models at the 95% confidence level. They didn't claim that only a neutrally, randomly chosen period of 15 years would falsify it, *any cherry picked 15 years* would satisfy that falsification.
Now, go back to your authority figures, and quote their necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement. Simply saying "the earth is getting warmer" is hardly sufficient, since by that logic, when the earth got out of the last major ice age (i.e., it got warmer), it was due to non-existent human CO2 emissions.
Try harder!
Um, no there isn't:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/climatic-phenomena-pages/extreme-weather-page/
As pointed out, a single outlying year (even if we accept the dubious anecdotes from SS) doesn't show a trend.
So you're going with the "I'm right because you don't have an alternative" meme? Ignoring, once again, the null hypothesis which stands true until excluded by some necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement (which you're unable to provide or quote)?
There is an alternative to my model being right and your model being right - that false dichotomy doesn't include both our models being wrong. Asserting that my ignorance (or anyone else's) somehow means that your *guess* is automatically true is a fallacious argument.
Start the scientific method, and provide your necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement. Then we can start playing the science game :)
Yes, climate always changes. That doesn't mean we can't understand the reasons it's changing.
I never said we can blame 100% of Sandy on humanity. But perhaps it would have been 5% less destructive without the influence of humans on the climate. It's probably impossible to tell with any individual weather event how much it changed because of anthropogenic climate change. But by statistically analyzing weather events over time we can see how they are changing and discover trends.
Let me clarify my point for you, since it seems I didn't communicate it effectively -
Map the oxygen available to a human, starting at zero, going to 100%. It's a single variable, and it will affect the entire system, but it doesn't behave *simply*. Yes, drop it to zero, and the human dies. Naively assume that on the opposite end of the scale, the human will be full of life, and BAM, you've got another dead human.
Now, we'll find several ranges of perturbation, and a range of fairly optimal requirement for a human, but I'll note this - we didn't find these ranges by building a GHM (global human model), and tweaking the O2 variable :)
Show me historically that there is a range of "safe" CO2 for the planet, and say, some lower bound of "unsafe" and some upper bound of "unsafe", and maybe we can talk about what we need to do to keep it in the safe range. As it is, we've got wild speculation that anything over 350 is dangerous, with no falsifiable hypothesis statement. There have been times in the past that have been significantly greater in CO2 than today, and times in the past that have been significantly lower - tell me how you're going to assert that those outlying levels were "bad".
This I definitely agree with. And I think that's the rub - we might say, well, 5% isn't all that big of a deal - out of the billions of dollars of damage, we probably added a few million, and the benefits of a fully carbonized economy outweigh that few million (as well as any other millions you want to attribute to other bad weather). Maybe 50% turns the cost/benefit around. Maybe 75% is the magic number.
But if the question is impossible to answer, then it's *really* hard to convince people that they should accept a specific prescription for it.
I don't deny that cities can cause the local humidity to rise. Phoenix is a prime example of that. I'll even agree that that will have a small effect on global warming. But urban areas only cover about 3% of the global surface so it's not likely they can have that big an effect on the overall humidity. The point is that while water vapor can cause temperature change it can not force temperature change because it's level is dependent on temperature.
What I find even more stupid is the NEED for a consensus. If even a single person tells you you are walking into a sand pit, you should be more careful. If 4 out of 5 people tell you about it, you would be incredibly stupid to continue as if nothing new is going on. Ignoring potential danger until you are 100% certain of it is an evolutionary recipe for extinction. That's why living being react to cues, instincts, etc.
And if there was no real danger, so what? No harm done. God forbid we create a more stable and sustainable society for no reason!
To be fair I found the link on Forbes and the Heartland Institute, and replicas from scientists in the NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/science/02cold.html
Sigh... Forbes and the Heartland Institute... what passes for scientific evidence on Slashdot these days.
Is this supposed to be a response to the GP's request for evidence supporting the GGP's claim that we've experienced Global Cooling for the past 20 years?
I hope not. Here's what the link contains to support the anti-GW movement:
The word "twenty" does not occur at the link, and "20" only occurs in some dates.
The article, which BTW is a (respectable) science writer's contribution to a magazine rather than a scientist's peer-reviewed publication, does have this to say about cooling:
The weather in two places is not diagnostic. The "sea ice returning with a vengeance" is further described, later in the article, as (a) "far thinner than the yards-thick, years-old ice that dominated the region until the 1990s" and (b) "still lower [in extent] than the long-term mean".
So that leaves the "sharp drop in the globe's average temperature" as the only possibly interesting claim in the article. He doesn't give any further detail. A strict reading of the grammar requires the claim to be about last winter, not last year, but maybe he wasn't stating himself carefully. If he meant the whole year rather than the winter, presumably "over the last year" means... oops, the article is dated March 2, 2008.
Yeah, in 2008 we enjoyed a dip.Never mind that it was still higher than any year recorded before 1990, making it of necessity one of the 22 hottest years ever recorded. Any plot of annual temperatures shows up and down from year to year; pointing out that one year is a local dip is vacuous. It's the trend that matters.
And what has happened since then? 2001-2011 account for 11 of the 12 warmest years on record. (1998 is the other member of the twelve.) A comparison of the first 10 months of 2012 to the first 10 months of preceding years suggests that 2012 is on track to be the ninth hottest year on record. And we set a new record minimum for arctic sea ice in each of the past two summers.
I seriously hope I misunderstood the intent of your post, because it doesn't provide the slightest evidence that we've enjoyed a 20-year cooling spell. 16 of the 20 warmest years on record have occurred in the past 20 years. I wasn't even going to bother replying, until I checked in and noticed that it was up-modded to an astonishing "4, Informative". I'm having a little trouble figuring out what it's informative about, except the extent to which
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The GGP request was mine, and no my previous post was not supposed to provide the evidences I asked myself. I found the Forbes and Heartland Institude articles and they were certainly very biased and one sided. I decided not to link them. If someone wants to read their bullshit google is your friend, though.
The link in my previous post was actually a NY Times article talking about the claim that there is a global cooling and showing viewpoints from several scientists about it. By reading the article it becomes clear that the cooling data was severely overblown, misinterpreted and used as propaganda to dismiss the effects of AGW.
Again and again we see discussions about our collective decision making turning into a Pro-Con debates. Again people (even those familiar with Karl Popper's work) use positivist language, insinuating that the data verified their hypothesis. I think its about time we kick this discussion into the Meta-Level.
The big question as far as I can see - and this applies to all science - is how to pick a hypothesis given data. In Philosophy of Science this is known as the Problem of Induction, and one should not assume that Popper's Falsificationalism is the final word. I believe there are good grounds to oppose any kind of methodological fundamentalism in science.
Skepticism is more then a catch phrase to add to a Hypothesis you don't like. Its a philosophy built over millennia that doubts the possibility of existence and/or uniqueness of solutions to the Problem of Induction. We all have Cognitive Bias, but the point of the scientific method is to filter that out. There is no perfect filter, and we need to keep tinkering not only with theory but with the very method that selects the theory.
Often neglected (if not forgotten) are IMO are several relevant issues to debate: What is the cost of being wrong here? How well can we estimate the probability of a given event (sampling errors)? What are the costs (and auxiliary benefits) of behaving as if this is the case?
I sincerely wish more people making critical decisions in our society would read the work of Nassim Nicholas Taleb, an extremely erudite Skeptical Empiricist who advocates Anftifragility in society. AGW or no AGW, we need to dissolve the great myth of our modern age - that all this Science and Technology is headed in the right direction.
As someone who thinks the "scientific consensus" on AGW is much more likely correct than not, I have to say I agree with this. History is littered with examples of scientific consensus that was later proven wrong, and indeed that is the very definition of scientific progress.
The interesting thing to note there is if the scientists were more correct than society at large. Do you distrust the scientific consensus that brushing your teeth is good for your dental health? You can level the exact same argument against that consensus as you just did for climate scientist's consensus.
I accept the scientific consensus on the benefits of brushing my teeth because (a) my experience leads me to agree and (b) there is no evidence I know of that it could be harmful, and (c) it is a low cost, low effort intervention, so the stakes in the hypothesis being wrong are low.
Here's my counterexample: circa 40-50 years ago, a scientific consensus about diet and nutrition emerged in medical science that centered around the principles that dietary fat, especially saturated fat, dietary cholesterol and animal foods in general were the cause of atherosclerosis and heart disease, and that the healthy diet should be higher in carbohydrates and lower in fat. Official dietary guidelines based on that consensus were then widely publicized prior to and during a decades-long multi-billion dollar research effort to attempt to confirm that consensus. That research effort was a history of ever more underwhelming results which consistently whittled down the central hypothesis (e.g., from 'watch your total cholesterol', to 'good' and 'bad' cholesterol, to finally it being pretty much settled that dietary cholesterol consumed has little effect on blood serum cholesterol levels). Now there is ever increasing evidence that the dietary advice based on that consensus may have been harmful to a significant fraction of the population that will become obese and/or diabetic on a high carbohydrate diet, and may even contribute rather than protect against atherosclerosis and heart disease in those people. This is still not settled science, in fact it seems less settled than ever. And as someone who did become obese then diabetic despite my best efforts following the scientific consensus, only to find that by restricting carbohydrates my diabetes reverses and my weight slowly but steadily decreases, my experience, coupled with my observation that proof for the consensus view seems to weakening over time, leads me to distrust the scientific consensus in this case. Note I'm not asking you to agree with me on this, only to concede that if my assessment of the facts is correct, the consensus should be challenged.
Like climate science, nutritional science is complex and so much is difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt, and the stakes for implementing far reaching policies based on inaccurate or incomplete science are high and the potential for unintended consequences is great. The difference to explain the reason why I side with the scientific consensus on AGW but against it on nutritional science is my observation on which way the evidence is moving; in the first case it seems to be getting stronger and stronger, where the latter is getting weaker and weaker. And I'm not dismissing the idea of a scientific consensus entirely, but more as an indicator to where the science is leading than a data point in itself. The reason for my original post is that I too often hear and read pro-AGW point about "scientific consensus" as if that ends the argument, and why it is ineffective. If you need a soundbite, I think "the evidence points more strongly towards AGW each day" is much more effective than "there's a scientific consensus".
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
You deserve mod points for this. Excellent analysis.
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
What mechanism that scientists think they know about the working of the sun accounts for 30% less output than today? Since nobody was there to observe this, how does anybody know that the sun produced less energy back millions of years ago than it does today?
A sufficiently advanced simulation is indistinguishable from reality.
"...CO2 being a greenhouse gas, why would it not cause warming?
It definitely would and does cause warming. But why is it uniformly assumed that warming would ONLY be bad? Living things generally do better when it is warm rather than when it is cold. There are large land areas today that are too cold for much of the life on earth including people. If these large land areas became habitable and productive, that would most likely outweigh any negative effects such as a slightly higher sea level. Any sea level rise would be offset by the fact that a warmer atmosphere can contain more water. More water in the atmosphere would mean more average rainfall, which would make formerly dry areas productive as well. Water vapor is also a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. Because water has such a large heat capacity, temperature differences from night to day and in various parts of the earth would be evened out. The average water vapor content of the East Coast especially in summertime is much higher than here in the West. Therefore the day/night temperature variations are much smaller in the East than in the West. A more even tempered earth, also would be producing fewer hurricanes, tornadoes and other violent weather. Overall, I think global warming is a good thing, as long as it happens over many generations, giving living things and people time to adapt.
A sufficiently advanced simulation is indistinguishable from reality.
The GGP request was mine
Ah, that explains the "to be fair" phrase, which I never figured out.
Tip of the hat to you, for asking for evidence.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
It's built in to the physics of how stars in the main sequence evolve. As they age they slowly get brighter until most of the star's hydrogen gets fused. The Sun is about halfway through that process.
salemdave
Wait, you're asserting that during the *entire* Holocene, russia never had a heat wave like in 2010? Never?
And during the *entire* Holocoene, there was never a polar vortex around antarctica with any sort of ozone hold? Really? Never?
Exactly what proxies did you use to decide to definitively that russia never had heat waves, and the ozone hole never existed?
It's as if you are expecting prediction of the outcome of some sort of game before it is even known what teams are going to be playing.
So you are seriously suggesting that even a Nobel prize winner is making as much as one of the liars on the denial travelling roadshows? Climb out from under that rock and look around.
For the same reason as, when we have one or two hot days, all the nutjobs come out and say "SEE THERE, GLOBAL WARMING, IT WAS REALLY HOT THIS WEEKEND?!".
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
Seeing as how we have this long range climate forecasting all figured out, I have a question.
Is it going to rain tomorrow?
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
Please? It's not so difficult. We have:
1. A measured rise in CO2 concentrations
2. A vast body of measurements showing increase in average temperatures (yes, after correcting for solar variations and what not)
3. A very straightforward and hard-to-refute mechanism for CO2 to cause the increase in temperature:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm
4. Well-studied stabilities of different gases in the atmosphere
The basics have been pinned down, debated, agreed upon and bought the t-^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H made it into university textbooks in the late 1980s to early 1990s. It's really not difficult: if more thermal energy is entering a system than exiting it, its temperature goes up. Simple conservation of energy. The mechanism for thermal energy to enter and exit the planet is radiation, and the way different gases interact with this radiation is well-understood. The earth is warming up, and it's because of the CO2 we're releasing - that's as close to a fact as an empirical branch of science like this can get.
The only thing that was (and is) not sure is how bad the effect would be. How much longer would a period of relatively low solar activity slow down the rate of warming? How much of the excess CO2 would be taken up by seas and plant material that doesn't rot or gets burned (slowing down the heating-up)? Would the feedback of the initial warming be negative (slowing down the heating-up) or positive (speeding it up)? Which spots on earth will get warmer and colder? Climate science is not about whether or not climate heats up due to our CO2 release. It hasn't been about that for the last 25 years! It's about how fast the warming will go in function of the CO2 levels and how badly different spots on earth will be affected. The stovetop is on; the question is merely "how high". We've come a long way in narrowing this down over the last 25 years and the results don't look pretty. A lot of governments around the world recognize this.
The present "debate" in the US is entirely fabricated, just like the past debates on whether tobacco increases the risk of lung cancer or on whether hydrogenated fatty acids cause coronary heart disease. The strategies used by industry to discredit reputable science are exactly the same. Even though I'm a big proponent of debating everything, the current climate change debate in the US is a disgrace to human intelligence. They're debating something that has been settled 25 years ago; one side just keeps on bringing up long-discredited arguments like a broken record, forcing the other side to keep on refuting them. The media give both sides equal weight for the sake of "political neutrality" (my ass) and the general public is utterly confused about something that is in essence very straightforward.
PROTIP: Letting the deniers "debate the controversy" is a sucker's game; it's a form of "rhetorical judo" which forces a skeptic (a GENUINE skeptic) to always make the first move in a debate, to which, the denier would have a list of cut-and-paste talking-points to give a canned response or rhetorical evasion.
It's letting a kook make a extraordinary claim ("All the scientists in this scientific field are WRONG, but I'm right!"), without extraordinary proof. Every. Single. Time.
It dosen't matter is the field is: cold-fusion, round-earth-ism, tectonic plates, smoking's link to cancer, evolution, or climate-change, the deniers all use the same play book (and in the case with smoking-causes-cancer and climate-change denialism, a lot of the PLAYERS are the same, q.v. the Heartland Institute)
a) when AGW alarmists see record heat waves, it's because of global warming. when they see record cold snaps, it's because of global warming. then they move to "climate change" (which, always does, so that's like saying "I'm right as long as something that always happens keeps happening"), and then the record does something silly like exhibit a zero trend for 16 years.
It appears that the major consequence of global warming is that the increased energy in the atmosphere triggers more extreme events. One of the key changes seems to be that it is changing — slowing — the rate that the jet stream moves back and forth (probably due to the nature of the coupling between the troposphere and the stratosphere). That allows for more extreme events — heatwaves have more time to develop, cold snaps can get further south and become colder, stormy periods last longer — and we see this in weather records. One extreme event doesn't mean all that much, but when the rate of extreme events is greatly increased, and for year on year too, we know that the probabilities driving our weather have been changed somewhat. Given that where we live and how we use the land depends hugely on the local climate (not on the global climate; you don't live and work everywhere at once!) this matters hugely in economic terms.
We can see and measure the changing climate. (We don't know how much it is going to change by overall; that's truly a bunch of educated guesswork.) We can see that this is likely primarily caused by CO2 concentration changes, and those we can also measure. (Non-greenhouse gas contributions seem to be minimal.) Where is the change coming from? Well, it's not volcanoes (which are producing the gas at about a constant rate) so it's probably either from CH4 releases (itself a super-powered greenhouse gas, but it gets oxidized to CO2 relatively quickly) from melting tundra or something like that, or it is from CO2 released directly from principally human activity. It is certainly true that we have, as a species, burnt an awful lot of fossil carbon; there are a lot of power stations, factories and cars out there.
So GW is real. Is it AGW? It's not 100% certain, but it is difficult to find anything else it could plausibly be. It certainly doesn't make sense from a public policy perspective to assume that it must be false.
b) AGW isn't falsifiable because any observation of global average CO2 and global average temperature can be explained away with an ad hoc special pleading. If the melting glaciers *prove* AGW, but advancing glaciers don't *refute* it, then you've simply done a "heads I win, tails you lose".
A single net-melting glacier doesn't prove all that much. It only samples local conditions (and whether a glacier grows or shrinks depends on the balance of melt rate and rate of accumulation due to snow). Moreover, conditions are naturally variable. But what about when 95% of all glaciers (outside of East Antarctica) are shrinking? Would that be evidence of GW? What's more, that's not the only observed phenomenon that's highly consistent with GW. The probability (as any good Bayesian statistician would tell you) of all these unrelated evidence lines being consistent with a no-GW hypothesis is really small indeed. There's really a crapton of evidence out there.
Whether the GW is anthropogenic is harder to work out. What it is is a damn good hypothesis that's consistent with a lot of facts; other explanations that are run past the same gauntlet don't hold up nearly so well. (Solar output changes, Milankovic cycles; these have demonstrably driven GW in the fossil record, but they don't predict a warming phase now.)
I suspect that the real reason you object to the AGW hypothesis is that, if it is true, it has public policy implications that you don't like. Tough. Scientists have been pushing for years for economic changes to reduce the impact of AGW precisely because they think that it is the cheapest
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Right, so you are able to equally explain any and all sets of circumstances with your theory. What does that say about your theory?
Global warming doesn't make any predictions about specific glaciers. (Quantum mechanics is also compatible with any combination of melting and non-melting in the Himalayas, but that doesn't make it pseudoscience.)
Sorry to inform you, but science doesn't depend on satisfying any arbitrary notion you can come up with. Stop acting like a creationist and learn something about the topic.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Oh, i don't need a model of the entire planet - I need a falsifiable hypothesis statement. The argument that "oh, our models are good enough because we cover *all* natural climate drivers" is just plain silly because it's obviously not true.
The problem is that the rationale for having faith in the central conceit of the GCMs is that "we can't think of anything else but CO2 that would explain any possible gaps in our knowledge of natural climate drivers".
I would hope that a falsifiable hypothesis would not only assert what we should observe in the future, but what we should have observed in the past. Certainly, proxy records aren't perfect, but the idea that *any* possible climate history is possible and compatible with the conceit that human CO2 emissions will cause catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is certainly a glaring weakness if asserted.
II believe in global warming, but not in anthropogenic global warming. Failure to differentiate is attempting to undermine agw opponents.
So you're going with the "I'm right because you don't have an alternative" meme?
I'm going with the you present a factual argument based on empirically verifiable evidence meme. Which does seem to be the standard methodolgy used by everybody, excepting your good self (from previous experience, not rushing to judgement).
Ignoring, once again, the null hypothesis which stands true until excluded by some necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement (which you're unable to provide or quote)?
You seem to be making a lot of presumption there. We are talking about your model - the one from which you derived the followiing concerning the complexity of sink interchange: Of course for both methane and CO2, the problem is that we don't simply have static sources and sinks -> they all interplay in such a complex manner, one cannot simply assert that a single variable drives the entire complex equation. Given climatologists already modelled for a dizzyingly high number of variables it's safe to assume your statement means you know of another variable and have modelled for it, otherwise your assertion that (in essence) models aren't complex enough would have no basis.
There is an alternative to my model being right and your model being right - that false dichotomy doesn't include both our models being wrong. Asserting that my ignorance (or anyone else's) somehow means that your *guess* is automatically true is a fallacious argument.
I never suggested you model was right. I'm withholding judgement until I see some evidence.
Start the scientific method, and provide your necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement. Then we can start playing the science game :)
Are you speaking to yourself? In case you aren't I remind you of my earlier (original) statement:
There isn't any need, nor motivation to persuade anyone. Denialists can think what they like. What they cannot do, is say what they like. If you are tempted to post denialist lies, misinformation and scaremongering, then you will be called on it. So get used to it.
Astrologists do that all the time. They take factual information about the positions of constellations, and people's birthdays, and present the empirical evidence of people whose horoscopes come true.
The problem? The way we can tell astrology and catastrophic anthropogenic global warming aren't *really* science? Neither of them has a falsifiable hypothesis.
And you think this is a *strength* of their models? Give someone enough degrees of freedom and they can show whatever they want to.
If you are tempted to post alarmist lies, misinformation and scaremongering, then you will be called on it. So get used to it. :)
When I read all these posts it just sounds like Nero fiddeling!!!
My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!
I'm going with the you present a factual argument based on empirically verifiable evidence meme.
Astrologists do that all the time. They take factual information about the positions of constellations, and people's birthdays, and present the empirical evidence of people whose horoscopes come true.
Dissing the scientific method now?
Should we also believe in fairies?
The problem? The way we can tell astrology and catastrophic anthropogenic global warming aren't *really* science? Neither of them has a falsifiable hypothesis.
So you assert (without proof). And unfortunately for you, I do happen to possess a good memory. Which brings us back to the lying. Should I believe that you have forgotten our previous conversation, or merely that you are lying?
Given climatologists already modelled for a dizzyingly high number of variables
And you think this is a *strength* of their models?
Definitely. I infer from this statement that you model does not calculate a large number of variables. Is my inference correct?
Give someone enough degrees of freedom and they can show whatever they want to.
Well, you might try that, and perhaps you have, and project your deceit onto others. But then, you aren't prepared to show your modelling to anyone, which kinda means that your model has all the believability of a fairy story.
If you are tempted to post alarmist lies, misinformation and scaremongering, then you will be called on it. So get used to it. :)
Bring it on, fairystoryliarfella ;) If you like, you can revert back to the methods previously employed by denialists - the ringing up scientists at home and threatening to kill them and rape their daughters. Bring it on! At 8% and dropping, the more trollish, more absurd your arguments, and the more you repeat them, the more like a cult you appear. So - fire away.
You think astrology is scientific, if it follows the scientific method in all ways except for requiring falsifiability?
So falsifiability is optional, and astrology is actually science? Really?
You're confusing the idea of the null hypothesis of natural climate change to a competing model. Your battle isn't with me, it's with reality :)
Exactly what part of the null hypothesis aren't you understanding?
Astrologists assert that one's personality is determined by the positions of the constellations at birth. They cannot simply say, "well, you show me *your* model of how personality is determined by this magical 'nature' you speak of, otherwise, my model, with its multitude of complex variables is obviously true!"
I understand that it's hard to see your own flaws, but please, at least *try* :)
Just curious - can you show me scientific proof that CO2 causes warming? Could it be a symptom and not the cause?
Dissing the scientific method now? Should we also believe in fairies?
You think astrology is scientific, if it follows the scientific method in all ways except for requiring falsifiability?
By all means keep banging on about it. You were the one who compared astrology to a branch of science you have previously admitted was falsifiable. Were you wishing on a fairy that I had forgotten the conversation? Might want to try a different fairy. Or has the conversation actually slipped your mind? Are you wondering what else might have slipped you by? Take a moment to ponder that and read on, dear boy.
Read on.
So you assert (without proof).
So falsifiability is optional, and astrology is actually science? Really?
So you don't have proof? By all means, press on with this argument.
Definitely. I infer from this statement that you model does not calculate a large number of variables. Is my inference correct?
You're confusing the idea of the null hypothesis of natural climate change to a competing model. Your battle isn't with me, it's with reality :)
So let's consider your assertions on modelling so far. First you told us that models don't test for enough variables:
Of course for both methane and CO2, the problem is that we don't simply have static sources and sinks -> they all interplay in such a complex manner, one cannot simply assert that a single variable drives the entire complex equation.
And then later you said that models that test for many variables can't be trusted: And you think this [modelling a large number of variables] is a *strength* of their models? Give someone enough degrees of freedom and they can show whatever they want to.
How many variables should be calculated in a model?
There was the one I referred to above, the El Nino/La Nina thing and another one about the monsoons, both well over a century ago. Ask a farmer how handy it is to know if it's going to be a wet or dry season before planting if you can't understand how this would be "useful". So there's a couple of very old and very simple climate models that have worked right there that I thought would be general knowledge just about everywhere.
All of this deliberate ignorance driven by PR is translating into a distrust of experts in just about every field and is going to damage a generation.
Are you going to drag out the trivial falsifiability of any non-zero effect of human CO2 and assert that from that we can jump to catastrophic anthropogenic global warming? Certainly you see that these aren't the same :)
The real question is, "how many variables can there be in a complex system before it defies attempts to model it"? If you've got a model with dozens of tweakable variables, you can pretty much make it say *whatever* your preconceived conceit is.
But again, the problem you have is well beyond that complexity and inaccuracy of the models you cite - it's the sheer lack of falsifiability of your hypothesis beyond the trivial non-zero effect.
Or are you now going to say that even if human CO2 emissions only increase global average temperatures by .000001C/century, we *must act now*? :)
You seem to only have rosy views in mind for this stance...what of the broken window fallacy? Many governments are on the verge of bankruptcy -- austerity is the norm, they're cutting everything they can get their hands on. If you spend extra money on this, it's money you have you cut from something else -- like healthcare or pensions or any number of things that could benefit humanity. I don't believe in spending money to deploy anything before it's time. If you want to finance research towards making it economically feasible, so be it -- but deployment of tech still in its infancy is never a good idea, it's just a wasteful money sink.
Look kid, stop pulling our legs, there is no way you can possibly be so dumb that you could seriously think that is what is meant above. Please stop this parody of a dumb as shit luddite and let's have a serious discussion.
You suggested all climate science is worthless - I gave you an obvious example of worth, and now you are pretending that all climate science is worthless unless it's fucking astrology? Come on now, your parody isn't even funny and it's really insulting people that have just been hoodwinked by the anti-science PR and don't know any better.
You were the one who compared astrology to a branch of science you have previously admitted was falsifiable.
Are you going to drag out the trivial falsifiability of any non-zero effect of human CO2 and assert that from that we can jump to catastrophic anthropogenic global warming? Certainly you see that these aren't the same :)
Setting aside (momentarily) the fact that you previously admitted that climate models can be falsified (along with the foundational theory), let's indulge ourselves and take your statement at face value:
1. What model did you use to arrive at the conclusion that increasing the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere would have a trivial effect?
2. Please quantify the boundaries used in your results (i.e above what temperature variance do you classify as "catastrophic"? )
3. What exact temperature differential does your model predict?
4. Where is your model published?
How many variables should be calculated in a model?
The real question is, "how many variables can there be in a complex system before it defies attempts to model it"? If you've got a model with dozens of tweakable variables, you can pretty much make it say *whatever* your preconceived conceit is.
You didn't address the question:
First you told us that models don't test for enough variables: Of course for both methane and CO2, the problem is that we don't simply have static sources and sinks -> they all interplay in such a complex manner, one cannot simply assert that a single variable drives the entire complex equation. And then later you said that models that test for many variables can't be trusted: And you think this [modelling a large number of variables] is a *strength* of their models? Give someone enough degrees of freedom and they can show whatever they want to. How many variables should be calculated in a model?
How many does your model calculate?
But again, the problem you have is well beyond that complexity and inaccuracy of the models you cite - it's the sheer lack of falsifiability of your hypothesis beyond the trivial non-zero effect.
Then why did you previously say that it was falsifiable?
Why did you go further and attempt to falsify the models?
How do you know the results are trivial?
What model did you use to arrive at these conclusions?
Or are you now going to say that even if human CO2 emissions only increase global average temperatures by .000001C/century, we *must act now*? :)
YOU drew conclusions about the effects of doubling the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and gave a precise measure to that prediction. Still waiting for you to show some working.
Yes, since that's not something I said :)
The original hypothesis would have been stated something like this - "Increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere will always cause an increase in global average temperature." The falsification was found in the ice core records that showed CO2 levels lagged temperature changes.
Given that the evidence shows that CO2 can increase, decrease, and even stay the same despite temperature changes, and that the correlation is lagged, it seems reasonable to conclude that if there *is* some effect CO2 has, it is overwhelmed by other natural forcings.
I don't believe there is a falsifiable hypothesis for the assertion of *any* catastrophic temperature variance, but I'm welcome to hear yours.
Again, you're assuming I have a competing model. I'm assuming that you're willing to allow that all temperature changes of the earth before humans existed was natural (no extra terrestrial super-gods poking at our planet). The variations observed since the dawn of humanity and the dawn of the industrial age look no different than the variations before - so there is no requirement to assert a new special cause for the current variations.
Again, you're assuming I have a competing model, and you're resting your argument on "my model is better than yours, so it must be true" :) The problem you have is that you're not competing with an arbitrary model I come up with about underground leprechaun dances driving temperature, you're competing with the null hypothesis of climate change completely unassociated with any human activity.
You're question, again, doesn't follow. You can't simply take, oh, twenty models and decide on their worth by counting the number of variables hard coded. What is necessary to make a model truly scientific is a clear, necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
I didn't. You're asserting something out of context. Go ahead, cite my direct words, and I'll explain how you're getting them wrong :)
Well, again, you're omitting context - the NOAA 2008 paper identified a clear falsification (15 years of no statistically significant warming), although if you're willing to hang your hat on their last 5%, I suppose it's a bit blurry :)
And you didn't see that as reductio ad absurdum of your argument? :)
Humans cause global warming with CO2 and similar.
a) Do nothing, climate gets worse, costs of a lot of money to adapt and repair damages.
Well, actually my point is that we have no evidence than higher CO2 = "climate gets worse"... climate perhaps gets hotter, climate changes, but not climate gets worse. Why does high CO2 = bad? Throughout Earth's history high CO2 has accompanied the largest explosions of evolution. Life flourishes in high CO2 environments. Perhaps humans are doing Earth (and its inhabitants) a favor.
So, before we start mucking about with unproven technology, costing us enormously, maybe we should actually do... I dunno, maybe... science?... and figure out WHAT we should do before we go rushing off to do "something". Maybe we're doing the wrong thing.
Yes, and the Earth produces even more itself.... now we can argue that the Earth-produced CO2 is "better" than the man-made stuff and perhaps that is true, but there is insufficient evidence to say that of ALL the sources of CO2, OUR contribution (and I don't doubt we contribute) is CAUSING GW.
I drive on the freeway... I am aware that the pressure of MY tires on the road CONTRIBUTES to the erosion of the pavement, but MY contribution is infinitesimal compared to what is done by other contributors. There is absolutely NO reason to think that if *I* stop driving on the freeway, the erosion will stop.
And my point in another thread is that throughout Earth's history higher CO2 has accompanied explosions in evolution... life flourishes in high CO2 environments. So, even if we ARE causing CO2 to drastically rise, it isn't any higher than what Earth has had in the past and during those times it was BETTER for life. Why all the Chicken Little concerns? That isn't science... that is hysteria and POLITICS.
Only 8%? I'd have thought it was far more than that...
Not everything that can be measured matters; Not everything that matters can be measured.
You had the assertion that climate scientists are not "*actual* scientists". I've simply pointed out that such an assertion is utter bullshit, no matter what idealogical baggage you are using to fuel it, and now you are attempting to put all these other words in my mouth? Why do you feel so strongly about this issue that you are willing to pretend to be both stupid and actually be so dishonest?
Setting aside (momentarily) the fact that you previously admitted that climate models can be falsified
Yes, since that's not something I said :)
That assertion might carry more weight had you not just contradicted yourself. ..
1. What model did you use to arrive at the conclusion that increasing the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere would have a trivial effect?
The original hypothesis would have been stated something like this - "Increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere will always cause an increase in global average temperature."
The original hypothesis was Tyndalls. And that wasn’t it. You literally don’t know the first thing about the science of global warming. Perhaps you should do some research.
The falsification was found in the ice core records that showed CO2 levels lagged temperature changes.
You’re not making any sense.
Those ice core records show us that previous rises led to further warming thus confirming what was hypothesized, and further, that the climate was sensitive to changes in CO2 due to positive feedbacks. In some instances a different event (e.g. milankovich cycle events) led to a change in CO2, which led to CO2 induced climate change, which either enhanced or suppressed the trigger effect.
This is why you need models and not guesswork to do science.
Given that the evidence shows that CO2 can increase, decrease, and even stay the same despite temperature changes, and that the correlation is lagged, it seems reasonable to conclude that if there *is* some effect CO2 has, it is overwhelmed by other natural forcings.
Guesswork. A moments thought would tell you that at different points in the glacial cycle, an external trigger might increase OR decrease the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the trigger gradient might be positive or negative, leading to situations where the CO2 delta suppresses or enhances the triggering effect. At no point in the geological record did CO2 not act as described by Arrhenius based on the work of Tyndall (and others).
This is not hard.
2. Please quantify the boundaries used in your results (i.e above what temperature variance do you classify as "catastrophic"?
I don't believe there is a falsifiable hypothesis for the assertion of *any* catastrophic temperature variance, but I'm welcome to hear yours.
You missed the point. You made specific claims about the climate effects of doubling the amount of CO2 (not to mention other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere. Your assertion is useless if you cannot show working.
3. What exact temperature differential does your model predict?
Again, you're assuming I have a competing model.
A valid assumption (see above). Even guesswork (which seems on present evidence to be your methodology) is a model in it’s own way. Not a very good one.
I'm assuming that you're willing to allow that all temperature changes of the earth before humans existed was natural (no extra terrestrial super-gods poking at our planet).
A valid assumption – given that this is logical, and what the science tells us.
The variations observed since the dawn of humanity and the dawn of the industrial age look no different than the variations before - so there is no requirement to assert a new special cause for the current variations
Variations in CO2 and subsequent climate change have always followed the pattern predicted by Arrhenius, Tyndall and Hansen. And variations in climate in the past have always had a cause. To suggest that the current climate change does NOT have a cause
You certainly don't understand Tyndall if you think that his hypothesis can be directly applied to the whole Church of Global Warming :)
Establishing that a greenhouse effect is at work in the atmosphere, and that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas (Tyndall's work), does not mean that human CO2 emissions are going to cause catastrophic warming.
No they don't. If CO2 is going up, and temperature is going down, then we're not getting any of this magical "further warming". CO2 and global average temperature are decoupled in the ice core record by a significant amount of time, and CO2 is on the *wrong* side to be a significant driver.
Tyndall never said "rising CO2 will cause global average temperature to rise" - Tyndall discovered that CO2 and other greenhouse gases could absorb heat, but he never asserted that from this fundamental principle you could model the earth's climate.
As for Arrhenius, and his naive model, he *is* contradicted by the geological record - CO2 rises in the past did *not* stave off ice ages.
What claims? Cite or it didn't happen.
No they haven't. Tyndall didn't predict climate changes, Arrhenius was wrong as per the ice core records, and Hansen simply adjusts 20th century data to fit his trope when things start looking different :)
Of course current climate change has a cause - just as past climate change has a cause. But even if we cannot specify every particular forcing and feedback of natural climate change before humanity existed, doesn't mean we cannot assert that climate change then was *natural*, not human induced.
When we state that the null hypothesis is simply that natural climate change has continued even through the birth of humanity and the industrial age, we similarly don't have to specify every last particular feedback and forcing.
Put more simply, of course climate change has a cause, and you're saying you know it 100%, and I'm saying you *don't*. Admitting ignorance of the specific causes of climate change is the null hypothesis, and the ignorance of the warmist modelers is *legend* :)
It's not really a falsification if you won't admit it after it happens, is it? :)
That's all I'm trying to get you to admit :)
The original hypothesis was Tyndalls
You certainly don't understand Tyndall if you think that his hypothesis can be directly applied to the whole Church of Global Warming :)
Poor attempt at misdirection on your part.
Establishing that a greenhouse effect is at work in the atmosphere, and that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas (Tyndall's work), does not mean that human CO2 emissions are going to cause catastrophic warming.
Thanks for agreeing with me. So you agree that someone (like yourself) who, rather than saying “I don’t really know the effect that adding CO2 will have, other than a general rise in temperature” says: “the rise in temperature will be neglible” needs to have some actual science to back up those predictions.
Those ice core records show us that previous rises led to further warming thus confirming what was hypothesized, and further, that the climate was sensitive to changes in CO2 due to positive feedbacks.
No they don't. If CO2 is going up, and temperature is going down, then we're not getting any of this magical "further warming". CO2 and global average temperature are decoupled in the ice core record by a significant amount of time, and CO2 is on the *wrong* side to be a significant driver.
Oh for goodness sake. Maybe you should read the actual results rather than relying on Spencer to interpret it for you. The actual ice core record is readily available. Car analogy: If I get in my car and drive off with my foot pressed flat to the floor on the accelerator down a straight road, it is quite possible for the car to briefly slow down if I chance upon a hill that is steep enough. The terrain and the accelerator both contribute to deciding how fast I go. Data on the terrain and the accelerator are readily available. On average, my car is going to accelerate despite periods of deceleration.
At no point in the geological record did CO2 not act as described by Arrhenius based on the work of Tyndall (and others).
Tyndall never said "rising CO2 will cause global average temperature to rise" - Tyndall discovered that CO2 and other greenhouse gases could absorb heat, but he never asserted that from this fundamental principle you could model the earth's climate.
Strawman.
As for Arrhenius, and his naive model, he *is* contradicted by the geological record - CO2 rises in the past did *not* stave off ice ages.
So you agree that climate models can be falsified? And his model did not cover previous geological periods - see below.
You made specific claims about the climate effects of doubling the amount of CO2 (not to mention other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere.
What claims? Cite or it didn't happen.
Certainly: natural climate change has continued even through the birth of humanity and the industrial age, Which is, of course, in direct contradiction to your earlier admission that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Variations in CO2 and subsequent climate change have always followed the pattern predicted by Arrhenius, Tyndall and Hansen. And variations in climate in the past have always had a cause. To suggest that the current climate change does NOT have a cause is pretty absurd.
No they haven't. Tyndall didn't predict climate changes,
You yourself predicted climate change on the basis of Tyndalls work.
Arrhenius was wrong as per the ice core records,
As per my earlier explanation (which you simply denied), the ice core records show us that the climate has sensitivity to CO2 levels – Arrheniuses model doesn’t work over those timeframes because the primary driver for climate now
You're misstating my assertion. I'm saying that *nobody* really knows the effect of adding CO2 into the atmosphere, beyond a non-zero increase in temperature. That includes you :)
Ah, the car analogy :) Pray tell, what data do you have on the "terrain" of cloud cover and albedo in the pre-industrial age? You're asserting knowledge where you have none :)
Moving the pea under the thimble again? Say you have two dozen climate models, all with the same central conceit - human CO2 emissions overwhelm natural climate variation. Do all two dozen have to miss predictions by say, 5%, in order for the central conceit to be falsified? Just one of them? Just the model mean?
Show me the *one* model that you believe represents your central conceit, which if in error regarding any predictions, will falsify your central conceit - none of this "bet on every space on the craps table" nonsense.
And exactly where in that statement you're quoting from me do I talk about CO2 doubling and its effect on global average temperature?
What? CO2 can be a greenhouse gas, and not drive global average temperature changes. In fact, the ice core record shows quite nicely that CO2 changes *after* temperature.
Heck H2O is a greenhouse gas - are you going to assert that humidity drives global average temperature?
Cite or it didn't happen. Make sure the cite *matches* your assertion :)
No it doesn't, it shows that CO2 levels have a sensitivity to climate. Causes happen *before* effects.
Ah, so you inoculate yourself from critique due to the historical record by making the magical claim that a hundred thousand years ago, CO2 didn't drive climate, but today it does. Nice unicorn thinking there :)
Hansen's adjustments to the temp record? Sure - http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/07/11/smoking-gun-that-giss-temperatures-are-garbage/
I'm saying that any person, or any large group of people, who claim that they know all the causes of climate change, and assert they can justi
So you agree that someone (like yourself) who, rather than saying “I don’t really know the effect that adding CO2 will have, other than a general rise in temperature” says: “the rise in temperature will be neglible” needs to have some actual science to back up those predictions.
You're misstating my assertion. I'm saying that *nobody* really knows the effect of adding CO2 into the atmosphere, beyond a non-zero increase in temperature. That includes you :)
You aren't in a position to speak of what others do and do not know. But I accept you have the authority to speak to your own ignorance - you are ignorant. Point taken. Therefore your assertion that anthropogenic CO2 will have no effect on climate has no credence, and so we can discard it. I'd be better off just guessing what the effect is - luckily I do not have to resort to that, owing to the raft of observations, experiments, and models done and built by scientists.
Data on the terrain and the accelerator are readily available. On average, my car is going to accelerate despite periods of deceleration.
Ah, the car analogy :) Pray tell, what data do you have on the "terrain" of cloud cover and albedo in the pre-industrial age? You're asserting knowledge where you have none :)
Have the effects of cloud cover and albedo changed post the industrial age? What happened previously, did angels blow out clouds from there arses? Are you being clownish on purpose?
So you agree that climate models can be falsified?
Moving the pea under the thimble again? Say you have two dozen climate models, all with the same central conceit - human CO2 emissions overwhelm natural climate variation. Do all two dozen have to miss predictions by say, 5%, in order for the central conceit to be falsified? Just one of them? Just the model mean? Show me the *one* model that you believe represents your central conceit, which if in error regarding any predictions, will falsify your central conceit - none of this "bet on every space on the craps table" nonsense.
Well I guess that argument made sense in your head, since you went to the trouble of typing it out. Something got lost in translation! Anyway, you can just answer the question: So you agree that climate models can be falsified?
I'll assume yes.
Certainly: "natural climate change has continued even through the birth of humanity and the industrial age"
And exactly where in that statement you're quoting from me do I talk about CO2 doubling and its effect on global average temperature?
No bother - I'll accept your belated admission that you know nothing of those effects.
Which is, of course, in direct contradiction to your earlier admission that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
What? CO2 can be a greenhouse gas, and not drive global average temperature changes.
How do you know? You profess to be ignorant of the matter.
In fact, the ice core record shows quite nicely that CO2 changes *after* temperature.
Are you hoping that just by simply posting this enough, it will somehow come to mean something other than what logic and observation tells us it means? ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm) If I wanted to listen to liturgy, I would find a church.
Heck H2O is a greenhouse gas - are you going to assert that humidity drives global average temperature?
You've made quite enough assertions for us to be going on with.
You yourself predicted climate change on the basis of Tyndalls work.
So again, the argument from authority :) You didn't even bother to ask for any sort of falsifiable hypothesis, cherry picked the authorities you'd believe, and blithely assert that magically, they are able to assert knowledge without any sort of falsifiability.
Yup, that sounds pretty religious to me :)
Of course they have - they change all the time. Do you honestly think cloud cover and albedo has been constant throughout human history?
You haven't shown me one yet :)
Again, show me the *one* model that you believe represents your central conceit, which if in error regarding any predictions, will falsify your central conceit. Or do you once again insist that your central conceit is beyond reproach and falsifiability?
You mistake my assertion - I'm asserting that without a falsifiable hypothesis statement, *everyone* is ignorant of the matter. You seem to believe that you can simply get away with picking and choosing particular labcoat wearing "scientists" as expert authorities, and trust them without asking them for the most basic of scientific requirements - falsifiability.
You see, we're ignorant, and I know it. You still have faith, however :)
You seem to have the SS liturgy down quite well :) Look, SS simply waves their hands and say, "oh, it's okay that CO2 lagged before, now it's leading and things have changed, so don't mind us" :)
Really, that all you have? My God is bigger than yours? :)
Wow, and somehow you took that statement of mine to mean that I predicted climate change? Neither the word "climate" or "change" is in that cite :)
Don't know much about feedback loops, do you? :) Look, you assert CO2 has a positive feedback effect - yet CO2 hasn't driven climate, but has instead lagged it...doesn't that make it obvious to you that any positive feedback effect CO2 has is overwhelmed by other natural variation?
CO2 does not decide to behave differently when humans emit it, versus emissions from other natural sources. Any positive feedback effect it has is *obviously* insignificant when we can look back and see that it *lagged* temperature.
No, he simply changed the data after it was collected so that it would match his apocalyptic rantings :)
Are you seriously trying to defend his post-hoc manipulation of the data to create warming trends where they didn't exist before? Really? Is that how you do science?
You misunderstand what I'm speaking about - I'm speaking about the scientific method, which I have pro
You aren't in a position to speak of what others do and do not know. But I accept you have the authority to speak to your own ignorance - you are ignorant. Point taken. Therefore your assertion that anthropogenic CO2 will have no effect on climate has no credence, and so we can discard it. I'd be better off just guessing what the effect is - luckily I do not have to resort to that, owing to the raft of observations, experiments, and models done and built by scientists.
So again, the argument from authority :) You didn't even bother to ask for any sort of falsifiable hypothesis, cherry picked the authorities you'd believe, and blithely assert that magically, they are able to assert knowledge without any sort of falsifiability.
And this:
Anyway, you can just answer the question: So you agree that climate models can be falsified?
You haven't shown me one yet :)
These are simply not even addressing the topic at hand.
Whilst trolling is an interesting art form in and of itself, it is unlikely to impress me into accepting that a whole branch of science has been or could be falsified by you. I've warned you before about this behaviour, it does you no credit. Troll on your own time.
. Let's summarise our conclusions so far:
1. You accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and therefore that the quantity of natural CO2 in the atmosphere plays a role in warming the atmosphere. However, you are absolutely certain that human emissions will not warm the atmosphere any further. You either cannot see that discrepancy, or you do and refuse to address it.
2. You profess yourself to have no knowledge of climate science, to the extent that you cannot (or will not) predict or model the scenario where there is twice as much atmospheric CO2 as there was in 1850. Nevertheless you insist that all modelling must be wrong, without explanation. You claim that all climate models are not falsifiable, and your evidence for this is a blog in which there is superimposed two graphs of unknown provenance, both showing demonstrable CO2 forcing toward the latter half of the 20th century, and this in your mind proves some kind of fraud.
3. You say there was no conspiracy involved in this fraud, but cannot explain how the previous published results could have been unpublished. You blame it all on one man (James Hansen) without explaining why he would have have modified a graph that shows a significant amount of CO2 forcing to another which shows essentially the same amount. You can't explain the link between this alleged fraud and your original assertion that the models are not falsifiable.
4. Having claimed that climate models are not falsifiable, you then attempted to falsify one. You aren't prepared to comment on this discrepancy.
5. You claim expert knowledge of the scientific method, but cannot justify any of your positions by referencing science. Your oblique references to scientific concepts focus on a fallacious use of "the" null hypothesis, an assertion for which you have been previously corrected, again and again and again.
6. You claim a natural forcing for the current warming event, but cannot explain what is doing the forcing. You claim that justifying this assertion is not your responsibility.
7. You claim that natural climate forcings disprove the possibility of CO2 forcing because CO2 has a positive feedback relationship with both itself and other forcing mechanisms. You justify that by using ice cores which in fact, prove the feedback is approximately 90% (http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm). You don't want to discuss this either.
Have I missed anything?
Sure they are. You're confused about the line of argument which refutes your beliefs, and I'm explaining it to you. Your claims of certainty (by proxy at that), are unfounded because you simply haven't started the scientific method with a falsifiable hypothesis statement. Demanding that I provide my own personal alternative falsifiable hypothesis statement is a red-herring - you're not in competition with me, you're in competition with the null hypothesis.
You're misstating my assertion. CO2 can be a greenhouse gas, and be related to the temperature of the planet, without human emissions playing any significant role. Are you stating that there is no possible scenario where human emissions can have a negligible effect?
I've made myself perfectly clear - GCM models which are supported by alarmists are non-falsifiable. More specifically, no observations of real world climate or CO2 would falsify their central conceit that is hard coded into them (i.e., that human CO2 emissions drive global average temperature).
As a case example of this kind of religious thinking, in 2008 the NOAA claimed that their models would fail at the 95% confidence level if a 15 year period of statistically insignificant warming was observed. We've had 16 years now. Now, do you accept that the central conceit is wrong, or do you hold onto the last 5%, or do you insist that some other ad hoc special pleading can be inserted to preserve your faith?
GISS simply changed their data and didn't version control it. Do you deny that GISS has adjusted their data, and failed to provide any sort of version control for their previous values? Please, point me in the direction of the GISS git if you've got a URL.
I asserted that NOAA claimed to have a falsifiable model, by specifying a falsification. Now that the falsification has been observed, instead of admitting the error of their central conceit, you remain faithful to the original model.
So, did you *really* consider the original model to be falsifiable? Or did you always have your ad hoc special pleading in your back pocket? :)
And exactly what is fallacious about insisting that the null hypothesis is that human CO2 emissions have no relationship (causal or otherwise) with global average temperature? Please, be specific.
Or if it's just CO2 levels period, what is fallacious about insisting that the null hypothesis is that there is no causal relationship between CO2 and global average temperature?
You keep thinking that you've made some point, but gloss over the details.
Eureka, you just may have gotten it! Before humanity, there were warming events. We cannot explain for all of these warming events what exactly was the forcing that caused them. But we know these were all natural (unless you want to bring ET or God into the picture). Of course nobo
When you've satisfied me on one particular point, we'll move onto the next. If this conversation is cut short because the topic gets old on ./, we'll pick up again the next time, assuming, (as I've done in this conversation) that conclusions we've reached in previous discussions are true.
Sure they are. You're confused about the line of argument which refutes your beliefs, and I'm explaining it to you. Your claims of certainty (by proxy at that), are unfounded because you simply haven't started the scientific method with a falsifiable hypothesis statement. Demanding that I provide my own personal alternative falsifiable hypothesis statement is a red-herring - you're not in competition with me, you're in competition with the null hypothesis.
This is the conclusion that we previously reached on this point:
It's YOUR hypothesis. We (the human race) aren't going to ignore 150 years of scientific research, and that research will not be set aside so that you'll have a place that you are comfortable arguing from. If you want to assert that that science is wrong, you prove it is wrong. OUR default starting point (what you would incorrectly called the "null hypothesis") is that peer reviewed science is accepted unless an experiment or observation proves otherwise.
And exactly how do you prove a non-falsifiable hypothesis wrong? :)
That's like asking you to win a game of "heads I win, tails you lose" :)
If you want to argue something scientific, you are required to have a falsifiable hypothesis statement. Our default starting point is that scientific papers that are peer reviewed do not necessarily contain falsifiable hypotheses.
You are more than welcome to falsify my hypothesis by quoting from any peer reviewed paper you wish :)
It's YOUR hypothesis. We (the human race) aren't going to ignore 150 years of scientific research, and that research will not be set aside so that you'll have a place that you are comfortable arguing from. If you want to assert that that science is wrong, you prove it is wrong. OUR default starting point (what you would incorrectly called the "null hypothesis") is that peer reviewed science is accepted unless an experiment or observation proves otherwise.
And exactly how do you prove a non-falsifiable hypothesis wrong? :)
That's like asking you to win a game of "heads I win, tails you lose" :)
If you want to argue something scientific, you are required to have a falsifiable hypothesis statement. Our default starting point is that scientific papers that are peer reviewed do not necessarily contain falsifiable hypotheses.
You are more than welcome to falsify my hypothesis by quoting from any peer reviewed paper you wish :)
So you accept my debunking of your most sacred "null hypothesis". Excellent. We look forward to your attempts to falsify the science, from your great store of knowledge of climatology.
There's no need for me to provide any falsifiable hypothesis - these have already been provided by climate science. Begin your falsification when ready.
Far from it - you're either willfully misunderstanding the null hypothesis of climate change, or conflating it with your secondary null hypothesis "we must accept all articles that get past peer review as truth" (as if simply getting an article peer reviewed or published makes it the null hypothesis...how cute!).
You're lying. Prove me wrong by quoting the falsifiable hypothesis you think "climate science" has provided.
So you accept my debunking of your most sacred "null hypothesis". Excellent. We look forward to your attempts to falsify the science, from your great store of knowledge of climatology.
Far from it - you're either willfully misunderstanding the null hypothesis of climate change, or conflating it with your secondary null hypothesis "we must accept all articles that get past peer review as truth" (as if simply getting an article peer reviewed or published makes it the null hypothesis...how cute!).
There's no need for me to provide any falsifiable hypothesis - these have already been provided by climate science.
You're lying. Prove me wrong by quoting the falsifiable hypothesis you think "climate science" has provided.
Very well then. If you don't accept your previously accepted position re: usage of the hypothesis, we'll continue to discuss that point until you do.
Nobody who has any knowledge of science will abandon scientific principle, the scientific method, and peer reviewed and falsifiable findings on the basis of an assertion by a guy on the internet. This is the position of a 100% of scientists, including contrarian climate scientists, including your hero, Roy Spencer. On the one side, everybody who knows anything about science, on the other, you. On the one side, the scientific method. On the other, your assertion (which you have labelled your "null hypothesis"). Are you Pharaoh, a godking, that you might pronounce a new reality for us to accept? Or are you just a lone, delusional guy?
You have yet to provide any evidence that you have seen, or know of, any falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. This is an obvious abandonment of the scientific method on your part, to simply assert that a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement exists somewhere out in the ether without being able to directly quote it.
You continue to fail to provide either your own falsifiable hypothesis statement, nor any other trusted expert of yours. And the more you fail to do that, with every reply, you make my position stronger :)
So, how many more times will you *claim* that there is a falsifiable hypothesis out there without actually quoting it? Two more times? Three more times? How long will you simply duck the issue, and claim that somewhere, out there, lives a mystical and magical falsifiable hypothesis of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming that simply cannot be spoken aloud? :)
Unless you can actually give us some reason to accept your assertion(s) they are simply fairy story. By your assertions I mean, your assertion that the current climate change event is natural without any observable cause, and the other (slightly related) assertion that all climate science is unfalsifiable. Nobody needs to disprove these assertions, any more than an assertion of fairies at the bottom of the garden needs to be disproved by biologists.
Perhaps you've heard of "proving a negative"? :) Yes, we've got a large pdf here of every single instance of climate science, and I can provide it to you, you can read through it, and thereby verify that all climate science is unfalsifiable :) /sarc
Really? Look, all you have to do is show a *single* instance of a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. And you still, after so many comments, haven't been able to quote a *single* one. Is it because you're unable to? Simply unwilling to?
How many peer-reviewed warmist papers have any falsifiable hypothesis stated within them, do you think? 10%? 20%? 50%? Or is it so vanishingly rare that a highly motivated and intelligent person such as yourself would have to spend years researching it? :)
You're asserting that fairies (falsifiable hypothesis statements of CAGW) live in our gardens (the sum total of all climate science). You haven't shown me a single one, but insist that unless I can disprove that they are there, I must accept them as existent.
If my assertion that warmist climate science is unfalsifiable is so trivial to refute, please, by all means, quote the refutation directly. Or, you can respond once again, trying to shift the burden of proof, failing to provide a single falsifiable hypothesis statement.
I'll bet you do the latter :)
"Dubious authorities" from the kid recycling PR and bullshit from a bugeyed idiot that goes around screaming about "world government" and who pretended he had a cure for AIDS a few years back? Quick puzzle kid, who is more dubious, a guy that writes suduko puzzles for a living but calls himself a scientist or a real scientist with published peer reviewed work?
As for your question, it was answered before you asked it. I suggest you look at that quote above from Attenborough again since he describes quite well where faith in expert opinions comes from. There's your answer.
Perhaps you've heard of "proving a negative"? :) Yes, we've got a large pdf here of every single instance of climate science, and I can provide it to you, you can read through it, and thereby verify that all climate science is unfalsifiable :) /sarc
Really? Look, all you have to do is show a *single* instance of a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. And you still, after so many comments, haven't been able to quote a *single* one. Is it because you're unable to? Simply unwilling to?
Nice try, but not quite there. You at least understand now that if you want to refute science, you first need to read it and understand it. I'm not your helper. I feel no compulsion to look up scientific papers on your behalf. Your constant stream of baseless assertions certainly don't compel me to do anything. Do assertions of fairies in the garden compel anyone to respond to those assertions? First show me that your assertions have some basis in reality, and then we can get down to the detail.
As for the rest of your reply, let me just remind you that you are welcome to indulge in false equivalence, burden of proof fallacies and other rhetorical trickery. I can refute you by pointing out your fallacy. Alternatively, you could focus on the topic at hand, and provide some foundation for taking your assertion of scientific expertise seriously. In the latter case I might NOT be able to refute you. Who knows?
Your choice.
Claiming that someone else is practicing a fallacy, when in fact the fallacy is on your part (false equivalence, burden of proof) is a clever tactic, but thoroughly unconvincing :)
As I had surmised, you have commented yet again without quoting a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. While you seem to feel that this burden of proof is inappropriate to set upon your shoulders, one would think that by this time, a motivated and intelligent person as yourself would have been able to find the refutation of my assertion if any such falsifiable hypothesis existed. And thus, my conjecture becomes stronger :)
So, let's do some modeling - we'll change the names to protect the innocent:
An believer in astrology has read many astrologer experts over the decades, trusts them deeply, and knows that they have complex models for astrological charts, incorporating all kinds of empirical observations of constellations, planets, and even smaller heavenly bodies. The believer is fully convinced that because of the complex models that are reinforced by so much consistent evidence in the behavior of people under certain astrological signs, that astrology is in fact a scientific pursuit.
A skeptic of astrology, who has read and understood Karl Popper, challenges the believer to present a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement to show that astrology actually contains the required falsifiability of the scientific method.
What possible things could the believer do to respond, since we, the uninterested and neutral observers, know that no such falsifiable hypothesis exists?
Maybe they could assert that the skeptic needs to disprove astrology?
Maybe they could assert that the skeptic simply doesn't know enough about astrology models and details to comment?
There's one thing they absolutely *cannot* do - they cannot provide a falsifiable hypothesis statement that doesn't exist.
Now, if you presented this model to a believer in astrology, what do you think they would do to defend themselves? We know they can't provide a falsifiable hypothesis statement, but will they imply that one exists but they're just too busy to bother looking it up? Will they argue against the requirement of falsifiability in the scientific method? Or maybe they'll just ignore the model, and continue asserting the skeptic needs to prove a negative, or become ambiguously "more informed"? :)
Let's see :)
There isn't any need, nor motivation to persuade anyone. Denialists can think what they like. What they cannot do, is say what they like. If you are tempted to post denialist lies, misinformation and scaremongering, then you will be called on it. So get used to it.
Since you seem confused about the role you and I respectively play in this conversation.
1. It's not my job to persuade you, and hence, I haven't attempted to do that
2. You can think what you like, there is no harm in your lone stance, except to your own reputation
3. If you post denialist lies and misinformation you will be called on it.
If you mistook this conversation for another, that is your concern.
False equivalence fallacy - your assertions that falsifiable hypothesis statements for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming exist are not the equivalent of an *actual* *quoted* falsifiable hypothesis statement.
If you post warmist lies and misinformation, you will be called on it, and thusly, here I am :)
My bet is that yet again, you'll blithely assert that showing an example of a falsifiable hypothesis statement is not your responsibility, despite your faith that they exist somewhere out there :) Your inability to provide such a quote is further consistent evidence of your warmist lies and misinformation :)
False equivalence fallacy - your assertions that falsifiable hypothesis statements for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming exist are not the equivalent of an *actual* *quoted* falsifiable hypothesis statement.
If you post warmist lies and misinformation, you will be called on it, and thusly, here I am :)
My bet is that yet again, you'll blithely assert that showing an example of a falsifiable hypothesis statement is not your responsibility, despite your faith that they exist somewhere out there :) Your inability to provide such a quote is further consistent evidence of your warmist lies and misinformation :)
So at this point your ability to reply has shrunk down to merely parroting me, like a teenage girl screaming lyrics at a rock concert. You aren't a rock star :-)
Probably this new rhetorical tactic arises because you perceive it to be a position of safety. I don't know for sure, I'm not a pyschologist. However it is a mistake on you part.
False equivalence fallacy - your assertions that falsifiable hypothesis statements for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming exist are not the equivalent of an *actual* *quoted* falsifiable hypothesis statement
Provide a citation in which I made that assertion.
If you post warmist lies and misinformation, you will be called on it, and thusly, here I am
Cite yourself, describing the terms and conditions of your posting in this thread, prior to my post at http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3303957&cid=42229965 , matching that description.
We call it "mocking you" :) Your grand claim to call out misinformation and lies is so juicy with hypocrisy, it truly shows how a motivated and intelligent person can completely ignore any evidence which refutes their premise.
"I'm not your helper. I feel no compulsion to look up scientific papers on your behalf. Your constant stream of baseless assertions certainly don't compel me to do anything"
You said this in reply to yet another one of my assertions that you could not quote any necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement from any peer reviewed literature regarding catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. It was an empty response, and hence my valid critique of your use of false equivalence - your assertions that falsifiable hypothesis statements for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming exist are not the equivalent of an *actual* *quoted* falsifiable hypothesis statement.
Here's an example of some other bits of your lies and misinformation:
"However, if you try to counter the objective facts of climate change with rhetoric, ad-hominem and misdirection, you can expect others to call you on it. Myths are not the equal of facts."
The objective fact of climate change is that it has always happened, and that there is no necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming aka "climate change". Your myth, that such a falsifiable hypothesis statement exists, but you're too busy to look it up and quote it, is a lie and misinformation that deserves to be called out.
So, (again, mocking you), if you are tempted to post warmest lies, misinformation and scaremongering, then you will be called on it. So get used to it. :)
[I] call it "mocking you"
So you're trolling?
Does trolling substitute for being able to provide citations, in your mind?
How exactly will you win the hearts and minds of scientists over to your theory by trolling? Did the death threats and emails threatening to rape their children convince them to join the denialist cause?
your assertions that falsifiable hypothesis statements for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming exist
Provide a citation in which I made that assertion.
"I'm not your helper. I feel no compulsion to look up scientific papers on your behalf. Your constant stream of baseless assertions certainly don't compel me to do anything"
That cite says the exact opposite of what you need to provide. If it helps: here is our conversation (from http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3303957&cid=42249320)
[you]The problem? The way we can tell astrology and catastrophic anthropogenic global warming aren't *really* science? Neither of them has a falsifiable hypothesis.
[me]So you assert (without proof). And unfortunately for you, I do happen to possess a good memory
So: Provide a citation in which I made the assertion that falsifiable hypothesis statements for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming exist
The objective fact of climate change is that it has always happened, and that there is no necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming aka "climate change".
So you assert (without proof).
Call it "counter-trolling" :)
And I'm still waiting for you to provide a citation to a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming :)
Here's a perfect example of your lies and misinformation - the "scientists" you speak of are nothing of the sort, since they haven't even fulfilled the most basic requirement of science - falsifiability. Consider yourself called on it :)
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...or did you mean something else?
Here - 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?
Oh, wait, you'll just say "I'm not here to convince you" or "I won't do research for you" :)
Nevermind :)
Your continual inability to quote said falsifiable hypothesis seems like pretty good proof at this point :) You're intelligent, motivated, and yet unable to provide a quotation from any peer reviewed literature. Is it that you've misplaced your references? Perhaps you've never seen this falsifiable hypothesis statement?
Consider yourself called on your lies and misinformation again :)
[I] call it "mocking you"
So you're trolling?
Does trolling substitute for being able to provide citations, in your mind?
How exactly will you win the hearts and minds of scientists over to your theory by trolling? Did the death threats and emails threatening to rape their children convince them to join the denialist cause?
Call it "counter-trolling" :)
Are you unsure what it is? First you said it was mocking, now you say you are "counter-trolling".
Are you expecting that such rhetorical games will be effective - given that I don't care what you think? There isn't any need, nor motivation to persuade anyone. Denialists can think what they like. What they cannot do, is say what they like. If you are tempted to post denialist lies, misinformation and scaremongering, then you will be called on it. So get used to it.
How exactly will you win the hearts and minds of scientists over to your theory by trolling? Did the death threats and emails threatening to rape their children convince them to join the denialist cause?
Here's a perfect example of your lies and misinformation - the "scientists" you speak of are nothing of the sort, since they haven't even fulfilled the most basic requirement of science - falsifiability. Consider yourself called on it :)
Yes, of course, it's all a vast conspiracy by scientists to cover up the truth. Why is it that when you drill down enough, every denialist claim boils down to a vast conspiracy theory?
So: Provide a citation in which I made the assertion that falsifiable hypothesis statements for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming exist
[no answer]
Why did you not provide the citation, when called on it? If you are unable to do so, then say "I'm unable to provide a citation", otherwise, provide a citation in which I made the assertion that falsifiable hypothesis statements for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming exist
Your continual inability to quote said falsifiable hypothesis seems like pretty good proof at this point
So let's go over this again:
1. You made the assertion: 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?
2. You voluntarily entered into this conversation knowing that I would make no effort to convince you [me] There isn't any need, nor motivation to persuade anyone. Denialists can think what they like. What they cannot do, is say what they like. If you are tempted to post denialist lies, misinformation and scaremongering, then you will be called on it. So get used to it..
What part of you have provided me with no compelling reason to respond to your assertion do you not understand?
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.
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* :)
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?
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?
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 :)
First you said it was mocking, now you say you are "counter-trolling".
You can consider them synonyms
Are you expecting that such rhetorical games will be effective - given that I don't care what you think? There isn't any need, nor motivation to persuade anyone. Denialists can think what they like. What they cannot do, is say what they like. If you are tempted to post denialist lies, misinformation and scaremongering, then you will be called on it. So get used to it.
How exactly will you win the hearts and minds of scientists over to your theory by trolling? Did the death threats and emails threatening to rape their children convince them to join the denialist cause?
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.
So you assert (without proof). The time has now come for you to provide proof for your assertion: Scientific theories indicating that the current warming event is in part due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are all unfalsifiable.
Provide details of each experiment and how it avoids falsification.
Also, provide the following with respect to your assertion that climate scientists are lying:
1. By what mechanism are these scientists not in conspiracy (your assertion) but able to achieve the same fraudulent results?
2. How was the system of peer review cheated, if not by conspiracy?
3. What percentage of scientists are engaged in lying? All climate scientists? All chemists? All physicists?
4. When did the non-conspiracy coincidental lying commence? What triggered 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"
Boy did you get that wrong. Embarrassingly wrong.
Here is the quote you are referring to (from http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3303957&cid=42353043)
[YOU] The problem? The way we can tell astrology and catastrophic anthropogenic global warming aren't *really* science? Neither of them has a falsifiable hypothesis.
[ME] So you assert (without proof). And unfortunately for you, I do happen to possess a good memory. Which brings us back to the lying. Should I believe that you have forgotten our previous conversation, or merely that you are lying?
In our previous conversation you admitted that the science of AGW was falsifiable, in 2 parts, firstly, the underlying principles (CO2 as a greenhouse gas) and later, that models themselves were falsifiable. So your citation directly contradicts what you claim.
So: Why did you not provide the citation, when called on it? If you are unable to do so, then say "I'm unable to provide a citation", otherwise, provide a citation in which I made the assertion that falsifiable hypothesis statements for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming exist
Are you going to assert that you meant something entirely different when you said you "possess a good memory"?
Certainly - why wouldn't I exploit your mistake?
You can clear all this up - do you believe there exists a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming?
There's no reason to think that the relevant hypotheses do NOT exist.
Have you seen it?
Irrelevant.
Can you quote it?
Irrelevant.
If you are tempted to post warmist lies, misinformation and scaremongering, then you will be called on it. So get used to it. :)
That is both mocking, and counter-trolling, in case you're wondering :)
No, you got that wrong, again :)
Scientific theories indicating that human CO2 emissions are going to cause catastrophic global warming all fail the required test of falsifiability.
Since this is the science game, my hypothesis requires falsifiability - and voila! It has it! All we need to do is find a *single* instance of a peer reviewed paper that contains a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, and BAM, we've got our falsification.
So how would we go about finding this falsification? Well, I've searched the literature - nothing in the first 300 hits here have any such falsifiable hypothesis statement - http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=catastrophic+anthropogenic+global+warming+falsifiability&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5
I've also gone to a very intelligent slashdot warmist, and spent the last few days looking for a falsifiable hypothesis statement, and after dozens of comments, the falsification of *my* theory hasn't been found.
So far, so good :)
I did no such thing. You've clearly misinterpreted something terribly, again.
Cite, or it didn't happen.
CO2 as a greenhouse gas is *necessary* for AGW to be true, but surely it isn't sufficient. If anything, it is only one of *many* things that must be true for AGW to be true.
Furthermore, as you've already illustrated, despite NOAA 2008 claiming it would be falsified if there were 15 years of no statistically significant warming, the warmists (you included), simply discard inconvenient data :) If you won't accept a previously stated observation as a falsification, then *obviously* you're holding onto a non-falsifiable hypothesis, aren't you? :)
Sure there is - a survey of the literature fails to show any necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, and furthermore, a true believer, such as yourself, with gobs of intelligence and motivated reasoning, can't find *some* SS page that refutes this critique.
If you, an intelligent and motivated reasoner, cannot quote a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement after *dozens* of comments, it's a pretty good bet there isn't one :)
Of course it's relevant - if you've seen it then at least you're speaking from some empirical basis. If you *haven't* seen it, then you're talking out of your hat :)
Really? So, if say, for example, I had rock solid proof that there were emails from climate scientists admitting that they had exaggerated their findings, and failed to have any falsifiability in their hypotheses, I could just respond to your request for that citation with "irrelevant"? :)
We'll just go with the mos
So you assert (without proof). The time has now come for you to provide proof for your assertion: Scientific theories indicating that the current warming event is in part due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are all unfalsifiable. Provide details of each experiment and how it avoids falsification.
Scientific theories indicating that human CO2 emissions are going to cause catastrophic global warming all fail the required test of falsifiability. Since this is the science game, my hypothesis requires falsifiability - and voila! It has it! All we need to do is find a *single* instance of a peer reviewed paper that contains a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, and BAM, we've got our falsification. So how would we go about finding this falsification? Well, I've searched the literature - nothing in the first 300 hits here have any such falsifiable hypothesis statement - http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=catastrophic+anthropogenic+global+warming+falsifiability&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5 [google.com]
Good try, but unfortunately your methodology is fatally flawed. Such a search would only find papers mentioning falsifiability - since it's not common practice to do so, the only conceivable way for you to prove your hypothesis: Scientific theories indicating that human CO2 emissions are going to cause catastrophic global warming are not falsifiable would be to examine each paper in detail i.e. Provide details of each experiment and how it avoids falsification. Oh, and inadvertently you missed the second part:
Also, provide the following with respect to your assertion that climate scientists are lying:
1. By what mechanism are these scientists not in conspiracy (your assertion) but able to achieve the same fraudulent results?
2. How was the system of peer review cheated, if not by conspiracy?
3. What percentage of scientists are engaged in lying? All climate scientists? All chemists? All physicists?
4. When did the non-conspiracy coincidental lying commence? What triggered it?
In our previous conversation you admitted that the science of AGW was falsifiable
I did no such thing. You've clearly misinterpreted something terribly, again. Cite, or it didn't happen.
Certainly:
Here you attempt to falsify the underlying theory of CO2 forcing :
No they don't. If CO2 is going up, and temperature is going down, then we're not getting any of this magical "further warming". CO2 and global average temperature are decoupled in the ice core record by a significant amount of time, and CO2 is on the *wrong* side to be a significant driver.
Here you attempt to falsify a specific climate model: NOAA 2008 paper identified a clear falsification (15 years of no statistically significant warming)
In either case, you cannot both attempt to falsify the theory AND advocate that it is not falsifiable.
Furthermore, as you've already illustrated, despite NOAA 2008 claiming it would be falsified if there were 15 years of no statistically significant warming, the warmists (you included), simply discard inconvenient data :) If you won't accept a previously stated observation as a falsification, then *obviously* you're holding onto a non-falsifiable hypothesis, aren't you? :)
I haven't drawn any conclusions about that actual state of the NOAA model with respect to falsification: except that if it has been falsified, or if you have attempted to falsify it (unsuccessfully), or if you accept as credi
So, what you're essentially asking for is "please, search all the literature, quote all the literature, and show that it avoids falsification". Much like say, an astrologist might say, "please, search every horoscope, quote every horoscope, and show that it avoids falsification" :)
Clever, but not convincing :)
And you responded to this inversion of cause and effect by saying that it wasn't a falsification, even if observed :) Again, if your hypothesis can respond to any observation with "yeah, but our central conceit still stands", then it's not falsifiable :)
And again, if your trusted authorities *specify* a falsification, and then *observe* it, but still insist they haven't been falsified, doesn't it mean that they didn't start off with a falsifiable hypothesis, and they were just lying when they said they'd accept some specific observation as a falsification?
What don't you get about that?
Okay, so to recap, if catastrophic anthropogenic global warming has been falsified (i.e., NOAA models have failed their test, an therefore we can now consider the entire central conceit of human CO2 emissions driving catastrophic climate change as void), and you cheerfully accept that, then I'm happy to be proven wrong that CAGW is non-falsifiable.
On the other hand, if you continue to insist that the central conceit of CAGW is still true, no matter what the NOAA paper said about observations that would refute their central conceit, then you can't expect me to give up my assertion that CAGW is non-falsifiable.
So, has CAGW been falsified? Yes or no will do :)
You are a warmist liar, misinformer and scaremongerer, and your inability to provide a quoted necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is *directly* on topic. You have been called out for your lies and misinformation, and your inability to provide a falsifiable hypothesis statement is certainly relevant.
I'm left with no other reasonable scenario that you have not, in fact, ever seen a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of CAGW, and you are talking out of your hat. Thusly, I call you out :)
An example of a "necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement" used and acted on many times in the field of climate science would be:
"Show me a better model and I will use it".
Why are you bothering to make so much noise when your lie that there is no "statement" was so incredibly obvious?
So there's the example you've wasted so much time asking for - so fucking incredibly obvious that you knew it yourself before wasting everyone's time. I can understand someone like yourself on a political blog or new age crystal gazing crap, but why are you here polluting a tech site with such an obvious lie?
Such a search would only find papers mentioning falsifiability - since it's not common practice to do so, the only conceivable way for you to prove your hypothesis: Scientific theories indicating that human CO2 emissions are going to cause catastrophic global warming are not falsifiable would be to examine each paper in detail i.e. Provide details of each experiment and how it avoids falsification.
So, what you're essentially asking for is "please, search all the literature, quote all the literature, and show that it avoids falsification". Much like say, an astrologist might say, "please, search every horoscope, quote every horoscope, and show that it avoids falsification" :)
Clever, but not convincing :)
Now you are asking for my help in constructing a method to prove your assertion. That's ironic.
Find a valid method to prove your assertion, use that method, publish your results. Hop to it.
Here you attempt to falsify the underlying theory of CO2 forcing : No they don't. If CO2 is going up, and temperature is going down, then we're not getting any of this magical "further warming". CO2 and global average temperature are decoupled in the ice core record by a significant amount of time, and CO2 is on the *wrong* side to be a significant driver.
And you responded to this inversion of cause and effect by saying that it wasn't a falsification, even if observed :) Again, if your hypothesis can respond to any observation with "yeah, but our central conceit still stands", then it's not falsifiable :)
Stop spinning like a dervish, your sleight of hand is obvious to all. Your attempt at falsification was incorrect. This tells us two things:
(1) You haven't successfully falsified the theory of CO2 as a climate driver
(2) You think that the theory of CO2 as a climate driver is falsifiable, in contradiction to you explicit statements. Can you explain this contradiction? If not, why are you lying?
Here you attempt to falsify a specific climate model: NOAA 2008 paper identified a clear falsification (15 years of no statistically significant warming)
And again, if your trusted authorities *specify* a falsification, and then *observe* it, but still insist they haven't been falsified, doesn't it mean that they didn't start off with a falsifiable hypothesis, and they were just lying when they said they'd accept some specific observation as a falsification?
I repeat, if in you mind you think that the NOAA 2008 model has been falsified by an observation yet you claim that it cannot be falsified then you are lying. You really think it CAN be falsified. Explain this discrepancy.
What don't you get about that?
I don't get your constant attempts to change the topic and thus avoid the question.
I haven't drawn any conclusions about that actual state of the NOAA model with respect to falsification: except that if it has been falsified, or if you have attempted to falsify it (unsuccessfully), or if you accept as credible attempts to falsify it, you are effectively lying when you say that the model can't be falsified.
Okay, so to recap, if catastrophic anthropogenic global warming has been falsified (i.e., NOAA models have failed their test, an therefore we can now consider the entire central conceit of human CO2 emissions driving catastrophic climate change as void), and you cheerfully accept that, then I'm happy to be proven wrong that CAGW is non-falsifiable.
On the other hand, if you continue to insist that the central conceit of CAGW is still true, no matter what the NOAA paper said about observations that would refute their central conceit, then you can't expect me to give up my assertion that CAGW is non-falsif
Ignore this hrthompson69 idiot, he probably has never even tried to parse and understand that crime to the English language he keeps on parroting that probably originally comes from some loser parked in a "thinktank" until a political job comes up. This turd he's placed on Karl Popper's grave is a deliberately obfiscated suggestion that there is nothing that will convince a climate scientist to change their mind, which is utter bullshit already proven wrong by the rejection of models over time for more correct models as freshly collected data is matched to predictions from models.
Thus hrthompson69's strawman climate scientist doesn't actually exist so we've been arguing against a juvenile fantasy. He's better off arguing with himself since only he knows what is going on in his own head and he's the expert on his own fantasies.
Ignore this hrthompson69 idiot, he probably has never even tried to parse and understand that crime to the English language he keeps on parroting that probably originally comes from some loser parked in a "thinktank" until a political job comes up.
I see we have mutual friend. The original loser in question is most likely Bob Tisdall, given the strong correlation between "climate science can't be falsified!" and simultaneous attempts to falsify it, and the apparent personal vendetta against skepticalscience.com, where Bob goes occasionally for an ass whoopin'.
Anyway, the 'falsifiable hypothesis' schtick is not quite so moronic as the 'null hypothesis' schtick - apparently, the null hypothesis is chosen by whoever calls 'dibs' on it...
This turd he's placed on Karl Popper's grave is a deliberately obfiscated suggestion that there is nothing that will convince a climate scientist to change their mind, which is utter bullshit already proven wrong by the rejection of models over time for more correct models as freshly collected data is matched to predictions from models.
Oh, I know, we arrived at that place early on but I let it drag out for a while. Sometimes a it's good to end early, sometimes it's helpful to take your time, to help a lesson stick, ya know?
I'm pointing out just how silly your asserted method for proving completeness is - you're asking someone to prove a negative.
You misunderstand again - if you're going to use NOAA 2008 as an example of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming being falsifiable, then it has been falsified, and we can move on with our lives, and I'll cheerfully admit I was wrong about CAGW being falsifiable.
On the other hand, if you're going to insist that NOAA 2008 isn't falsified, then you should cheerfully admit that you haven't proven me wrong about CAGW being non-falsifiable :)
Do you deny that the NOAA 2008 claimed that their models would be excluded at the 95% confidence level if a period of 15 years of statistically insignificant warming was observed? Do you deny that we've observed 15 years of statistically insignificant warming?
Are you holding onto the last 5%?
All of those have falsifiable hypothesis statements. CAGW does not. Astrology does not.
Then you've made my point, and we'll end on that - all of your models are red herrings, the accuracy of which is irrelevant to your central conceit of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. You use them as proof of your premise, but when they are falsified, your premise withstands any damage at all.
You have many models, which you claim can be specifically falsified, but your CAGW hypothesis is not falsifiable, nor does it have any necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
Your lies, misinformation, and scaremongering has been called out again, sir :)
What you're saying is that your central conceit (that humans are causing catastrophic global warming), can adapt to *any* observation simply by tweaking the models a bit. You can stretch these models in an unlimited fashion, and never be wrong about your initial premise.
This is the textbook definition of astrology :)
Our warmist friends would like to believe so, but sadly, the null hypothesis is simply an assertion that two phenomena have no correlation, or more specifically, one does not have causation to the other (even if they are correlated).
But hey, if you follow dbIII's logic, all science is simply "show me a better model and I'll use it" :) It's like watching astrologers compete with who can get the most accurate horoscope :)
Our warmist friends would like to believe so, but sadly, the null hypothesis is simply an assertion that two phenomena have no correlation, or more specifically, one does not have causation to the other (even if they are correlated).
But since AGW doesn't require any correlation, your theories are as rubbish as usual. But you wouldn't know the first thing about the ACTUAL SCIENCE (tm) since you have already assured us you are profoundly ignorant, and have amply demonstrated that.
Now you are asking for my help in constructing a method to prove your assertion. That's ironic.
I'm pointing out just how silly your asserted method for proving completeness is - you're asking someone to prove a negative.
You asserted a negative, and now need to prove it, if you can't, then be it on your own head. Why do you say that the science is not falsifiable when you really think it is?
(1) You haven't successfully falsified the theory of CO2 as a climate driver (2) You think that the theory of CO2 as a climate driver is falsifiable, in contradiction to you explicit statements. Can you explain this contradiction? If not, why are you lying?
You misunderstand again - if you're going to use NOAA 2008 as an example of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming being falsifiable, then it has been falsified, and we can move on with our lives, and I'll cheerfully admit I was wrong about CAGW being falsifiable. On the other hand, if you're going to insist that NOAA 2008 isn't falsified, then you should cheerfully admit that you haven't proven me wrong about CAGW being non-falsifiable :)
Why do you say that the science is not falsifiable when you really think it is?
I repeat, if in you mind you think that the NOAA 2008 model has been falsified by an observation yet you claim that it cannot be falsified then you are lying.
Do you deny that the NOAA 2008 claimed that their models would be excluded at the 95% confidence level if a period of 15 years of statistically insignificant warming was observed? Do you deny that we've observed 15 years of statistically insignificant warming? Are you holding onto the last 5%?
Why do you say that the science is not falsifiable when you really think it is?
Is all unfalsified science, the big bang theory, evolution, Thermodynamics, Quantum Theory, Newtons Laws of Motion - are these theorys automatically NOT science, because they haven't been falsified, despite attempts to do so?
All of those have falsifiable hypothesis statements. CAGW does not. Astrology does not.
Why do you say that the science is not falsifiable when you really think it is?
2. The NOAA model has been falsified not the theories that the underpin the model. Unless you want to claim that the falsification of one model will falsify the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Then you've made my point, and we'll end on that - all of your models are red herrings, the accuracy of which is irrelevant to your central conceit of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. You use them as proof of your premise, but when they are falsified, your premise withstands any damage at all.
Why do you say that the science is not falsifiable when you really think it is?
No, quite obviously not. You couldn't possibly be so stupid as to really come to that conclusion so please stop pretending to be so dumb.
So, recap:
1) it doesn't matter if GCMs are falsified, CAGW remains non-falsifiable;
2) astrology is non-falsifiable;
3) CAGW doesn't even require correlation to be true.
Consider yourself called out *again* on your lies, misinformation and scaremongering :)
Really, demanding someone prove a negative? That's what you'll hang your hat on? :)
Me: If NOAA 2008 is correct, and the 15 year period observed of statistically insignificant warming has falsified the central conceit of CAGW, then yes, CAGW is falsifiable.
You: Aha! You've admitted it is falsifiable! But NOAA 2008 being falsified doesn't affect CAGW.
Me: So, CAGW is still *not* falsifiable.
You: No, no, I said it *is*, and you've got to prove that it's not!
Me: Quote your necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement then.
You: Nope, irrelevant.
Yeah, right :)
You've made my point, and we'll end on that - all of your models are red herrings, the accuracy of which is irrelevant to your central conceit of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. You use them as proof of your premise, but when they are falsified, your premise withstands any damage at all.
And you *still* don't have a falsifiable hypothesis statement after weeks of comments :)
Wait, so you're going with "science is done by, 'show me a better model and I'll use it'"?
Really?
And you say you've actually *read* Popper?
A central conceit (humans are causing catastrophic global warming with their CO2 emissions), that has a thousand models, but even if all one thousand were falsified, they could still be tweaked to maintain the central conceit, is by definition, a non-falsifiable hypothesis.
Would you accept this kind of logic for a different conceit? Like the conceit of astrology that human behaviors, personality and fates are determined by the positions of astrological bodies at the moment of their birth? If an astrologer told you, "show me a better model and I'll use it", would you feel compelled to come up with a detailed model of human behaviors, personality and fate? Would you feel cheated if they responded to your new model with a slightly tweaked model that was just slightly more accurate, and then they declared their premise true again?
It's a shame that someone who watched Buzz Aldrin land on the moon would abandon science and reason, and instead hold onto faith based climatology (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/5734525/Buzz-Aldrin-calls-for-manned-flight-to-Mars-to-overcome-global-problems.html)
Shame on you, sir, you're an embarrassment to your generation, and your generation's heroes.
1) it doesn't matter if GCMs are falsified, CAGW remains non-falsifiable;
You claimed that GCMS were unfalsifiable: You were lying. You claimed that AGW as a theory is unfalsifiable. Your were lying.
2) astrology is non-falsifiable;
You claimed that GCMS were unfalsifiable: You were lying. You claimed that AGW as a theory is unfalsifiable. Your were lying.
3) CAGW doesn't even require correlation to be true.
You claimed that GCMS were unfalsifiable: You were lying. You claimed that AGW as a theory is unfalsifiable. Your were lying.
You claimed that GCMs were falsifiable, but refused to accept the falsification of NOAA 2008, and furthermore, stated that the falsification of *any* model wouldn't refute the CAGW hypothesis. You are lying.
You claimed that the CAGW is falsifiable. You are lying.
You claimed that CAGW doesn't even require correlation to be true. You are lying.
Consider yourself called out once again :)
Oh, and you can prove that you *aren't* lying by simply quoting a single necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming from any piece of peer-reviewed literature you'd like to...but you've never seen one before, so if you claim you have direct knowledge of it without quoting it, you are lying :)
Why do you say that the science is not falsifiable when you really think it is?
You: If NOAA 2008 is correct, and the 15 year period observed of statistically insignificant warming has falsified the model, then yes, CAGW is falsifiable.
Me: Previously you said that the models were unfalsifiable. Now you say they are. Explain this discrepancy.
You: {Attempted change of topic}
Me: Previously you said that the models were unfalsifiable. Now you say they are. Explain this discrepancy.
You: If NOAA 2008 is correct, and the 15 year period observed of statistically insignificant warming has falsified the central conceit of CAGW then yes, CAGW is falsifiable.
Me: You are still not addressing the question: which is Previously you said that the models were unfalsifiable. Now you say they are. Explain this discrepancy.
Further, I've caught you lying again. What does the NOAA 2008 climate assessment paper actually say? And bear in mind, I've read the paper.
Since the behaviour of climate scientists is not as you suggest it's irrelevant. You are attacking a cartoon cutout, an immobile strawman with a sign that say "warmist" instead of real people doing real science. Your demonstrated inability above to grasp the general knowledge about climate science that most of society gets from weather reports mentioning seasonal trends (for example) shows that your attack is based on ignorance and is nothing but pointless name calling. The problem here lies with you not having the merest clue what climate scientists do yet still making wild assumptions then telling bystanders that those assumptions are real.
So once again, "teen genius", what is it that makes you better than all of the scientists in a field you know little or nothing about?
Easy - you don't accept the falsification of the NOAA 2008 model as a falsification of CAGW - therefore, this tinker toy doesn't even *represent* your central conceit...indeed, you blithely assert that *no* failed model can tear down your CAGW edifice, the ultimate claim of non-falsifiablility. Q.E.D. :)
It said that any period of 15 years of statistically insignificant warming would be excluded by their models at the 95% confidence level. So, either you're going to hold onto the last 5% chance that their models are correct, or you're going to admit that the models are no longer viable.
What say you? Will you lie, misinform and scaremonger again, claiming that the models are the truth when you say they are, but even if they're false, your central conceit still stands? :)
Consider yourself called out *again* :)
You claimed that GCMS were unfalsifiable: You were lying. You claimed that AGW as a theory is unfalsifiable. Your were lying.
You claimed that GCMs were falsifiable, but refused to accept the falsification of NOAA 2008, and furthermore, stated that the falsification of *any* model wouldn't refute the CAGW hypothesis. You are lying.
Your entire platform rests on the science not being falsifiable, yet all along, you thought it was. You were lying from the start. You said that NOAA 2008 includes a statement on falsification, in contradiction to your central platform. You didn't demonstrate any actual falsification of the models referenced in the paper, but now claim that the NOAA 2008 falsifies not only the models, but the underlying theory. To cover your arse when called on the latter specifically, you modified your citation of yourself to replace the reference to the model with a reference to the underlying theory. You lied on top of your lie. To sum up:
Falsifiabilty
You claimed that the models and the theory were not falsifiable, when all along you thought they were. You lied, your entire platform is a lie and a fraud.
Actually Falsified?
You initially claimed that the NOAA 2008 might 'be falsified'. You didn't demonstrate any actual falsification. You then claimed *it had been falsified*. The paper is referring to the HadCM3 climate model (Gordon et al. 2000). You tried to imply that it was referring to the underlying theory. Your attempted falsification failed, but you conflate this with a renewed claim of unfalsifability, whilst your attempted falsification is still out there,dangling like a noose.
Your lies
1. Claiming that the models and science were not falsifiable
2. Conflating not falsified with unfalsifiable
3. Claiming to have falsified the HadCM3 model based on a statement in the NOAA 2008 Climate Assessment, without demonstrating that the criteria specified in the paper had actually been met.
4. Post Hoc misquoting of the paper AGAIN to extend the scope of what might be falsified
Falsifiabilty
You claimed that the models and the theory were not falsifiable, when all along you thought they were. You lied, your entire platform is a lie and a fraud.
Actually Falsified?
You initially claimed that the NOAA 2008 might 'be falsified'. You didn't demonstrate any actual falsification. You then claimed *it had been falsified*. The paper is referring to the HadCM3 climate model (Gordon et al. 2000). You tried to imply that it was referring to the underlying theory. Your attempted falsification failed, but you conflate this with a renewed claim of unfalsifability, whilst your attempted falsification is still out there,dangling like a noose.
Your lies
1. Claiming that the models and science were not falsifiable, when all along you thought they were.
2. Conflating *not falsified* with *unfalsifiable*
3. Claiming to have falsified the HadCM3 model based on a statement in the NOAA 2008 Climate Assessment, without demonstrating that the criteria specified in the paper had actually been met.
4. Post Hoc misquoting of the paper AGAIN to extend the scope of what might be falsified
You asserted that regardless of the actual observation of the NOAA 2008 statement on falsification, CAGW still lives on no matter what.
You are lying when you assert that CAGW actually has a falsifiable hypothesis statement.
You are misinforming when you assert that it is irrelevant that you have never seen a falsifiable hypothesis statement of CAGW.
You are scaremongering when you assert that CAGW lives on no matter how many individual models are falsified.
Consider yourself called on it *again* :)
Copy paste? Afraid that your lies, misinformation and scaremongering lose their power unless they're blindly repeated? :)
Your underlying theory, which can apparently survive the falsification of any individual model, is, as I have clearly stated, quite obviously non-falsifiable. Your admission of this earlier puts quite clearly your lies into contrast :)
Of course I understand, and I also understand that while your imaginary strawman has fixed and unchanging ideas driven by ideology the real climate scientists don't. It just boils down to you mindlessly calling them names based on a false premise.
As for your second petty little thing equating just about all science with astrology, there is nothing there to understand apart from a twisted and petty little opinion that demonstrates your lack of awareness of the world around you. It reveals nothing apart from your own shortcomings.
Your entire platform rests on the science not being falsifiable, yet all along, you thought it was. You were lying from the start. You said that NOAA 2008 includes a statement on falsification, in contradiction to your central platform. You didn't demonstrate any actual falsification of the models referenced in the paper, but now claim that the NOAA 2008 falsifies not only the models, but the underlying theory. To cover your arse when called on the latter specifically, you modified your citation of yourself to replace the reference to the model with a reference to the underlying theory. You lied on top of your lie. To sum up:
Falsifiabilty
You claimed that the models and the theory were not falsifiable, when all along you thought they were. You lied, your entire platform is a lie and a fraud.
Actually Falsified?
You initially claimed that the NOAA 2008 might 'be falsified'. You didn't demonstrate any actual falsification. You then claimed *it had been falsified*. The paper is referring to the HadCM3 climate model (Gordon et al. 2000). You tried to imply that it was referring to the underlying theory. Your attempted falsification failed, but you conflate this with a renewed claim of unfalsifability, whilst your attempted falsification is still out there,dangling like a noose.
Your lies
1. Claiming that the models and science were not falsifiable, when all along you thought they were.
2. Conflating *not falsified* with *unfalsifiable*
3. Claiming to have falsified the HadCM3 model based on a statement in the NOAA 2008 Climate Assessment, without demonstrating that the criteria specified in the paper had actually been met.
4. Post Hoc misquoting of the paper AGAIN to extend the scope of what might be falsified
Copy paste? Afraid that your lies, misinformation and scaremongering lose their power unless they're blindly repeated?
It would hardly be appropriate to carry on ignoring the implausibility and self contradictory nature of your position. You are apparently reluctant to explain these discrepancies. So we'll continue to focus on them until you address them.
Your entire platform rests on the science not being falsifiable, yet all along, you thought it was. You were lying from the start. You said that NOAA 2008 includes a statement on falsification, in contradiction to your central platform. You didn't demonstrate any actual falsification of the models referenced in the paper, but now claim that the NOAA 2008 falsifies not only the models, but the underlying theory. To cover your arse when called on the latter specifically, you modified your citation of yourself to replace the reference to the model with a reference to the underlying theory. You lied on top of your lie. To sum up:
Falsifiabilty
You claimed that the models and the theory were not falsifiable, when all along you thought they were. You lied, your entire platform is a lie and a fraud.
Actually Falsified?
You initially claimed that the NOAA 2008 might 'be falsified'. You didn't demonstrate any actual falsification. You then claimed *it had been falsified*. The paper is referring to the HadCM3 climate model (Gordon et al. 2000). You tried to imply that it was referring to the underlying theory. Your attempted falsification failed, but you conflate this with a renewed claim of unfalsifability, whilst your attempted falsification is still out there,dangling like a noose.
Your lies
1. Claiming that the models and science were not falsifiable, when all along you thought they were.
2. Conflating *not falsified* with *unfalsifiable*
3. Claiming to have falsified the HadCM3 model based on a statement in the NOAA 2008 Climate Assessment, without demonstrating that the criteria specified in the paper had actually been met.
4. Post Hoc misquoting of the paper AGAIN to extend the scope of what might be falsified