I'm quite aware of noise in every measurement, and quite aware that Dr. Jones knew what he was saying when he talked about statistical significance.
As a bonus, I'm also quite aware that the global average temperature statistic has absolutely zero predictive capability regarding the all important distribution of temperature and weather events.
Now, instead of crying for pity all the time, just state, clearly and succinctly, your falsifiable hypothesis of AGW, or CAGW, or heck, even just plain GW. We can dispense with hand waving, and do real science, if we start from the basics and a solid, falsifiable hypothesis.
I'm sorry, you seem to have jumped the shark here -> what hypothesis did Arrhenius put forth regarding the atmospheric composition of other planets, and their temperatures? More specifically, have we measured any extra-terrestrial atmosphere for historical atmospheric composition, and gotten some sort of comparison to the average atmospheric temperature of that extra-terrestrial body?
Before you can falsify a theory, you need a falsifiable theory -> what temperature would Venus be if Arrhenius was wrong? What temperature would Jupiter be if Arrhenius was wrong? Simply stating "all of our observations confirm our beliefs" is not sufficient - that's "head's I win, tails you lose". Tell me what observation, on any planetary body you wish, for any atmospheric delta you wish, would contradict Arrhenius' hypothesis. Please, be specific.
Okay, so say we get little or no warming for 5 years, while CO2 increases. Are you satisfied that CO2 doesn't drive temperature?
What about 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? What if we find an ice core record that shows 100 years of rising CO2 and falling temperatures?
We already have falsifications to the very basic "an increase in CO2 causes warming", because we've *observed* cooling during periods of increasing CO2. So now you've got to expand on your hypothesis to account for periods of cooling during increasing CO2.
Want to try again? Maybe offer something a little more specific?
Exactly what math are you using to determine whether or not there is a statistically significant warming trend over the past 15 years?
Here's the famous Phil Jones from UEA:
"BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."
If your "simple" hypothesis is that temperature rises with CO2, you've got to explain why we can have increasing CO2, but not monotonically increasing global average temperature. As soon as you explain that, you've lost the simplicity you're trying to defend.
Just for fun, bunratty, give us some observation that you believe would falsify your hypothesis.
You're not stating a falsifiable hypothesis. You're implying that because of a spectroscopic property of CO2 measured in a lab, that your hypothesis is true (that CO2 levels drive global warming). This is not necessarily the case: you're *assuming* the conclusion and *asserting* the relationship, not proving it.
I am seriously questioning your ability to state any real-world observations that would refute your hypothesis.
The question is, for the past 15 years, has there been statistically significant warming?
Having 2010 and 2005 tied for the "hottest year" doesn't answer that question. Neither would an El Nino in 2012 answer that question.
Here's Phil Jones' own words:
BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
Well, let's add PDO and ENSO to that. Plus solar variations and cosmic rays. Oh, and clouds. Then the biosphere, which actually grows more with higher concentrations of CO2. Don't forget that the imaginary "average global temperature" doesn't tell you anything about its specific distribution, which is what *really* matters.
If it was as simple as you say, the past 15 years would have resulted in increasing temps, along with increasing CO2. As it stands, we've seen a stall in any statistically significant increase. So even if your theory is right (which, of course, you haven't stated in a falsifiable way), it's at *least* complicated enough to stay stable for 15 years while CO2 rises.
Actually, I didn't just appeal against authority, I provided a citation for exactly what the problems were with the Climategate whitewashes.
Let's take one example, Oxborough. An investigation so thorough that it ended up being 5 pages long. Here's some relevant detail on the 11 so-called representative papers they examined (and you'll of course do me the favor of actually responding to the specific allegations and problems here, rather than appealing again to authority of course):
The Committee did not issue a call for evidence. They claimed that the 11 papers they selected for examination were chosen because they “cover a period of more than twenty years and were selected on the advice of the Royal Society.” (Report paragraph 3). UK blogger Andrew Montford inquired who at the Royal Society advised on the selection. In response, the Royal Society would only state that they recommended the Committee have access to “any and all papers” they needed, but would not confirm the claim that they had selected the 11 papers specifically. It later emerged that the Royal Society did not provide any meaningful advice on the selection of papers. The actual chronology of their selection was unearthed through FOIA requests.
On 12 March 2010, UEA Vice-Chancellor Trevor Davies contacted Martin Rees of the Royal Society and Brian Hoskins (FRS) of the Hadley Centre to ask if they could say the list had been selected on the advice of the Royal Society.
Ron [Oxburgh]... is keen that we can say that it was constructed in consultation with the Royal Society. I did send you this list earlier, which I attach again here.[List obtained] They represent the core body of CRU work around which most of the assertions have been flying. They are also the publications which featured heavily in our submission to the Parliamentary Inquiry, and in our answers to the Muir Russell Review’s questions.
I would be very grateful if you would be prepared to allow us to use a form of words along the lines: “the publications were chosen in consultation with The Royal Society”.
Seven minutes later Martin Rees replied:
Dear Trevor, It seems to me that the scope of the panel’s work is a matter primarily for Ron [Oxburgh], but if Brian [Hoskins] is also happy with this choice of papers (as you know, I have no relevant expertise myself!) I see no problem with saying that the list was drawn up in consultation. best wishes Martin
Thirteen minutes later Brian Hoskins replied:
Dear Trevor I am not aware of all the papers that could be included in the list, but I do think that these papers do cover the issues of major concern. Best wishes Brian
That is the extent of the consultation behind the claim of the Inquiry that the papers were selected “on the advice of the Royal Society.” It is more accurate to say that the list of papers to be studied by the “independent” inquiry was drawn up by the UEA itself, and within about 20 minutes was rubber-stamped by two members of the Royal Society, both of whom cautioned that they did not have the proper expertise to do so. At no time was the list subject to any extensive examination by members of the Royal Society itself.
As for the 11 papers themselves, they were never ones that have been controversial (see http://climateaudit.org/2010/04/15/a-fair-sample/). The list also omitted the paleoclimate papers that had been subject to controversy, such as the Tornetrask and Yamal papers by Keith Briffa, and all the ‘hockey stick’-related paleoclimate papers from CRU. By focusing only on journal articles, the Oxburgh panel avoided the key question of whether CRU staff had suppressed uncertainties in WMO and IPCC Reports.
The sad part here is that had the inquiries been honest, they could have possibly recovered some of their lost credibility. Instead, we now have yet again baseless appeals to authority in order to justify a non-falsifiable hypothesis.
If you want to talk about the "science" of Global Climate Change, posit your falsifiable hypothesis first. Models upon models upon fudge factors isn't science, it's entertainment.
Really, a two and a half page blog post with no specific refutations?
How about something like this, that actually challenges specifics of Taubes' work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM (even though for the most part, it supports the basic premise of "calories in, calories out" being a useless trope).
Cars are not naturally occurring objects, for example, even if it's true that the humans who make them are.
I wholeheartedly disagree. There is no bright line you can establish that would definitively divide objects affected by humans as "natural" or "not natural". For example, if a human moves a rock, is it now unnatural? If a human splits a rock in two, is it now unnatural? What if the human carves a face into the rock? Or smelts it into a chunk of iron?
Asserting that humans are not naturally occurring, and some arbitrary range of things they have some effect on are somehow not naturally occurring, is not a supportable position.
There is one key aspect of the theory that can not be falsified: the assertion that the mechanism is a naturalistic one. That assertion can't be scientific because it's not falsifiable.
Your entire assertion that there is such a thing as "non-naturalistic" is your problem -> there's *no such thing* as "non-naturalistic", except in the arbitrary land of deciding what is "natural" and what is "artificial". Your attempt to paste a concept of "non-natural" is where you're getting hung up.
Now, perhaps you mean to say "natural" is something we can explain, and "non-natural" is something we can't explain (i.e., lightning and its properties are "natural", but a deity creating the universe in 6 days is "non-natural", not because it is not a part of the universe, but because we have no explanation for it that fits our understanding of the universe). You'll note that at one point in time, lightning was "non-natural", and attributed to Zeus, and later on it was "natural" and attributed to electricity generated by atmospheric conditions.
The basic axiom of the scientific method is that *everything* is natural and not subject to arbitrary changes in the laws of nature, it just might not be explained (or, quite possibly, explainable). If you cannot accept that axiom, I can understand why you can't understand the scientific process.
It's not sufficient to produce evidence against something: you must produce an actual counter-example to a universal claim, or show that your observation is otherwise logically inconsistent with the theory
What is the difference between "evidence against something" and "an actual counter-example to a universal claim" and an "observation that is logically inconsistent"? Those all sound like the same thing.
I don't follow your logic about the possibility of a falsifiable non-universal claim: non-universal claims aren't falsifiable through counter-examples.
A universal claim insists that something is *always* true, without condition. A non-universal claim insists that something is *always* true, with specific conditions. A non-universal claim is falsifiable if falsified within the specific conditions applied.
Universal claim: all complex life arises from simple life through random mutation and selective pressures Non-universal claim: some complex life *can* arise from simple life through random mutation and selective pressures
You correcting an error that I haven't made. My original assertion is that if you disprove P, you prove "not P", so all falsifications entail a proof of the negation. That is all.
You have made the error by asserting that a disproof of evolution would necessarily be a proof of creation. Evolution and creation are *not* opposing hypotheses. Your formulation of "not P" is a critical error in your understanding of evolution.
The great scientists who were also Christians (like Newton) held to the idea that the laws of the universe don't arbitrarily change, not because they were Philosophical Naturalists, but because they believed in a God who is a God of order and consistency.
The failings of great scientists don't really improve your argume
Because "life on earth has been artificially introduced by aliens from Sirius" is also quite specific, but not naturalistic, and thus not evolutionary.
Why would that not be naturalistic? If aliens have come to exist in this universe through natural processes, why wouldn't their activities be considered "naturalistic"? Furthermore, why would the artificial introduction of life from aliens on Sirius contradict evolution at all -> they certainly could have reached their level of intelligence and technology through evolutionary processes without aliens from the Gamma Quadrant, so on and so forth. The problem you have is that a theory of creation by aliens as the *only* method for the existence of complex or even intelligent life, asserts an untestable and unquestionable initial condition, where complex and intelligent life must exist without cause, or reason.
Mind you, I'd consider it tremendous progress for the scientific status of evolution if it were subject to specific falsifications -- that is specific falsifications which ruled out evolution as a whole for the organism, not falsification of specific evolutionary scenarios.
Of course it is falsifiable -> a specific assertion of a specific evolutionary path which leads to a specific organism *is* falsifiable. Anything from archeological to genetic evidence can demonstrate that.
Thus we can either have Natural Selection as an unfalsifiable tautology, an unfalsifiable (but verifiable) non-universal claim, or a falsified universal claim.
You're missing an important axis here -> it is a falsifiable non-universal claim if one puts intelligent actors into a category of "not natural", and it is a falsifiable universal claim if one accepts the actions of intelligent actors in the category of "natural". When an ant colony provides selective pressure on certain plants, directing their evolution in a given direction, we tend to categorize this as "natural". When a human colony provides selective pressure on certain plants, directing their evolution in a given direction, we tend to categorize this as "artificial". In the strictest sense of the scientific word, both are "natural", because *everything* is "natural".
For every P that you falsify, you prove "not P".
You're missing some important semantics here. Let me demonstrate -> P = everything in the bible is true. This is falsified clearly by our observations of geology, which puts the earth's age at much more than several thousand years. So have I now proven "everything in the bible is NOT true"? Of course not - the proof is "NOT everything in the bible is true". There can be some truth in there, and some lies in there.
Now take P = "all complex life comes from simpler life through random mutations and selective pressures". Let's say I falsify this by creating a complex life form without random mutations or selective pressures, but simply by constructing one in a laboratory. Have I now proven "all complex life DOES NOT come from simpler life through random mutations and selective pressures"? Of course not - the proof is "NOT all complex life comes from simpler life through random mutations and selective pressures". There is a *world* of difference between the two.
If the statement, "this organism arose by natural processes" is scientific, then it must be falsifiable, and the logical consequence of falsifying it is to prove the alternative, that it arose by supernatural processes.
You're creating a false dichotomy there -> there is no difference between "supernatural" and "natural". Everything is "natural" -> that's a basic axiom of the scientific method, the assertion that the universe is governed by rules that don't arbitrarily change.
If one were to take P = this organism arose by natural processes, and NOT P = this organism did NOT arise from nat
In our case "life" is the base phenomenon in need of an explanation. Evolution is a category of explanations for the existence of life which entail a naturalistic mechanism.
Instead of "naturalistic" why don't we say "specific"? Furthermore, let's agree that other explanations for the existence of life are not affirmed or denied by evolution -> they must stand on their own.
No, to falsify evolutionary theory in general, you'd need to perform an exhaustive search of genetic alterations to an organism (any organism will do), and determine that there are boundaries of viability which the organism can not cross without a net genetic change of X, which has a corresponding probability P of happening as a random mutation.
But you admit that falsification of a single organism's origin won't falsify evolution in general. It may be that the platypus was in fact, designed by aliens who gained their complexity by the standard processes of evolution. Proving that *true*, even across every life form on planet earth, does not falsify the general theory that simple life can become complex life through a process of mutation and natural selection.
Furthermore, the assertion of boundaries that "can not be crossed" through mathematic probability is a poor way to approach the issue -> the guesses upon guesses of any probability still admit the *possibility*, which is distinct from falsification. It's like saying that in the derivation of pi, the probability of a hundred zeros in a row being low is equivalent to the possibility of a hundred zeros in a row is zero. Such certainly isn't the case. We design our falsifiable hypotheses so that a single observation can bring the entire edifice down - simply using statistics as a proxy for falsification isn't science.
AGW is an assertion that (a) a trend is happening (global warming), and (b) an assertion that the trend has a specific cause (human-produced CO2). One could question the trend or the mechanism.
I think you've missed the point of the analogy -> asserting that the falsification of evolution would "prove" the truth of creation is a false dichotomy. It is quite possible that *both* can be wrong, and *both* can be right. The judgement upon one of them is not a guarantee of any sort of knowledge about the other. So in terms of falsifying AGW -> let's say we proved that a trend of increasing temperatures is *not* happening because of humans. This does *not* mean we've therefore proven AGC (that humans, if they're not increasing temperatures, must be decreasing them). The same follows with evolution as a falsifiable hypothesis, and creation as a belief -> they are not opposite theories, they are two completely different things.
If that is so, it strikes me that naturalistic (or non-anthropogenic, if there is a difference) global warming is not a falsifiable hypothesis.
You touch upon an important point here -> what, shall we call the null hypothesis? We begin with the assumption that the universe lives by a constant set of rules (even though we may not know them all), and that since we have a time period, before humanity, where global warming (and cooling) have happened, we can reliably assume that non-anthropogenic climate change happened (since it happened before the existence of man). So we're not arguing from ignorance here, we're arguing from experience.
Now taking this in terms of the question "how did complex life arise from non-life?", one might reasonably ask the question as to what the null hypothesis should be considered. The answer of "creation" becomes a feedback loop, because it presupposes an intelligent life form to exist before complex life exists. If you're a believer in a circular time loop style universe, this may very well be possible, but time travel, in the back to the future sense, is fanciful and non-falsifiable (at least in any way I've
What -- you're allowing that specific evolutionary scenarios can be falsified, but the general idea of evolution can't?
Can the general idea of "beauty" be falsified? The general idea of "light"? The general idea of "salt"? If you want to play the science game, you need to be specific.
If you really wanted to falsify evolution in its broad sense, you'd have to give evidence that it is not possible for life to arise and/or develop by purely natural mechanisms.
You're not playing the game right. I could give you a million examples of artificial life created in a laboratory, but none of those examples would falsify either natural selection as a mechanism for life-form change, nor would it falsify a specific asserted evolutionary chain for a modern organism. I could build a *perfect* dog, completely artificially, starting only with base elements, and that observation couldn't possibly be asserted as a falsification that other dogs came from earlier species.
If you did that, you'd not only falsify evolution in general, you'd also prove creation in general (leaving open nearly all the details of who did the creating and how).
Nope, wrong again. By asserting "evolution" and "creation" as somehow opposites you're making a huge error. For example, you don't prove anthropogenic global cooling by falsifying anthropogenic global warming (maybe people just don't have *any* effect). You're playing the same game that AGW believers play -> "we've modeled everything we can think of, and the only thing that matters in the model is CO2, so it *must* be CO2". An argument from ignorance is not an argument.
Me? I'm of the opinion that evolution in general is immune to counter-evidence.
You're not being specific enough in the definition of "evolution" or "natural selection".
I've seen some arguments against evolution that I think are pretty valid
Name one - make it as *specific* as possible.
Why should I be impressed that your particular theories are (so you claim) subject to falsification, when you will never be required to abandon evolution in general, no matter how many particular theories in that realm are falsified?
"evolution in general" is a straw man here. State *exactly* what you're talking about. Be *specific*.
It seems that because you seen "creation" and "evolution" as mutually exclusive hypotheses (they're not, even though only one is falsifiable), you're pretty hung up on this straw man of "evolution in general". Let me give an example of the straw men I might present:
Creation: the assertion that intelligent life was designed by separate intelligence that wasn't subject to creation itself (this takes man-made creation of life off the table) - non falsifiable because it posits the existence of something that is "not natural" (an odd concept that represents the hubris of man).
Evolution: the assertion that complex life forms arise from simpler life forms, through a process of random mutation and natural selection. Speculative in the details of any given evolutionary path, but falsifiable by the existence of complex life forms without the existence of earlier, simpler life forms. The simplest life is asserted as caused by random chemical processes.
De-evolution: the assertion that simple life forms arise from complex life forms, through a process of random mutation and natural selection. Falsifiable by the existence of simple life forms without the existence of earlier, more complex life forms. The complex life is asserted as caused by random chemical processes.
I would assert that natural selection is a general hypothesis of mechanism, and for "evolution", you can have specific assertions of the effect of natural selection on related species, but ultimately, those details of specific evolutions, wrong or right in any given instance, can't be considered a falsification of the hypothesis of mechanism. In either case, be it a falsifiable hypothesis of natural selection (general), or a falsifiable hypothesis of a specific evolutionary path, the falsification of *either* would not imply creationism is true, useful or scientific.
Natural selection isn't even a hypothesis in most formulations of the term: it's usually little more than a useful tautology. How do we know that the fittest survive? Because they demonstrate their fitness by the act of surviving.
If you choose to state it as a tautology, of course "natural selection" cannot be considered a falsifiable hypothesis. But that isn't your only choice.
(A) that's not falsification, it's fine tuning
That's semantics. The process of science applies to large hypotheses as well as small ones.
Most scientists wouldn't know *how* to search for evidence against evolution.
You're being much too broad. Put another way, what do you think the sentence "most scientists wouldn't know *how* to search for evidence against religion" means? Which specific religion? What specific religious claim? You can't search for evidence against "evolution" because you haven't defined it. You certainly can search for evidence against evolutionary links between specific species (panda bears and raccoons, for example, while phenotypically similar with the natural eye shadow, aren't very closely related). You can search for evidence against specific natural selection mechanisms.
The specifics here *matter*, and you're simply glossing over them. But you tell me -> *how* would *you* search for evidence against "evolution"?
Right... like how evolutionists are always trying to prove creationism in a valiant attempt to falsify their own theory.
Don't mistake "creationism" as a falsification of natural selection -> falsification of natural selection wouldn't make creationism true, nor would it make creationism science. You're mistakenly positing these two positions as competing scientific hypotheses, but that isn't the case -> natural selection is a falsifiable hypothesis; creationism is a faith.
But that being said, yes, scientists are always trying to falsify natural selection, by searching for fossils and other evidence that might refute it...such as a rabbit fossil in the pre-cambrian. Some falsification happens on a much more esoteric level (like Lamarckian models being applicable to changes that are passed on through mother's behavior that changes the uterine environment), but no scientist of natural selection has ever said, "stop collecting fossils, stop searching for evidence we might be wrong, just pack it up and go home guys!"
You're gonna have to do better than that. Addressing his article from ages ago is nice, but limited. Addressing his "Good Calories, Bad Calories" work, now that's another thing.
Here's Gary's actual response to the specious attacks you note:
The whole point of the "cherry-picking" you're criticizing is to debunk the conventional wisdom -> and all it takes is a single refutation of the "calories in, calories out" hypothesis to make it false.
If you had an ounce of integrity, you would not ignore the single refutations that falsify your thesis:)
Exactly what about Taubes' presentation do you dispute? The Kreb's cycle? The effect of insulin on fat accumulation? The history of the Pima indians and other indigenous peoples who became obese while utterly impoverished (in contrast to the "we're so wealthy we have so much to eat so we're fat" trope")?
Sounds like you've got some hand waving going on here, but no specific rebuttals to either Tabues' premise (i.e., obesity is a disorder of fat accumulation driven by the hormone insulin, not a function of "calories in, calories out"), or his citations of the scientific evidence.
Name just one specific dispute you have, I'm very interested in why you reject his skepticism and point by point falsification of the conventional wisdom.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm quite aware of noise in every measurement, and quite aware that Dr. Jones knew what he was saying when he talked about statistical significance.
As a bonus, I'm also quite aware that the global average temperature statistic has absolutely zero predictive capability regarding the all important distribution of temperature and weather events.
Now, instead of crying for pity all the time, just state, clearly and succinctly, your falsifiable hypothesis of AGW, or CAGW, or heck, even just plain GW. We can dispense with hand waving, and do real science, if we start from the basics and a solid, falsifiable hypothesis.
So, please, tell me what falsifiable hypothesis you choose to posit.
Or shall I attempt mind reading on Mindcontrolled? :)
I'm sorry, you seem to have jumped the shark here -> what hypothesis did Arrhenius put forth regarding the atmospheric composition of other planets, and their temperatures? More specifically, have we measured any extra-terrestrial atmosphere for historical atmospheric composition, and gotten some sort of comparison to the average atmospheric temperature of that extra-terrestrial body?
Before you can falsify a theory, you need a falsifiable theory -> what temperature would Venus be if Arrhenius was wrong? What temperature would Jupiter be if Arrhenius was wrong? Simply stating "all of our observations confirm our beliefs" is not sufficient - that's "head's I win, tails you lose". Tell me what observation, on any planetary body you wish, for any atmospheric delta you wish, would contradict Arrhenius' hypothesis. Please, be specific.
What observation would falsify your hypothesis that our "ice cubes" are currently melting? You're simply asserting that as true.
For a fairly thorough treatment on the subject of a falsifiable AGW hypothesis: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=521245
Okay, so say we get little or no warming for 5 years, while CO2 increases. Are you satisfied that CO2 doesn't drive temperature?
What about 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? What if we find an ice core record that shows 100 years of rising CO2 and falling temperatures?
We already have falsifications to the very basic "an increase in CO2 causes warming", because we've *observed* cooling during periods of increasing CO2. So now you've got to expand on your hypothesis to account for periods of cooling during increasing CO2.
Want to try again? Maybe offer something a little more specific?
Exactly what math are you using to determine whether or not there is a statistically significant warming trend over the past 15 years?
Here's the famous Phil Jones from UEA:
"BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."
If your "simple" hypothesis is that temperature rises with CO2, you've got to explain why we can have increasing CO2, but not monotonically increasing global average temperature. As soon as you explain that, you've lost the simplicity you're trying to defend.
Just for fun, bunratty, give us some observation that you believe would falsify your hypothesis.
You're not stating a falsifiable hypothesis. You're implying that because of a spectroscopic property of CO2 measured in a lab, that your hypothesis is true (that CO2 levels drive global warming). This is not necessarily the case: you're *assuming* the conclusion and *asserting* the relationship, not proving it.
I am seriously questioning your ability to state any real-world observations that would refute your hypothesis.
The question is, for the past 15 years, has there been statistically significant warming?
Having 2010 and 2005 tied for the "hottest year" doesn't answer that question. Neither would an El Nino in 2012 answer that question.
Here's Phil Jones' own words:
BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
What observations would *not* fit the prediction? Specifically, what is your falsifiable hypothesis of carbon dioxide driven global warming?
Pray tell, how did Arrhenius state his theory of causation in a falsifiable hypothesis?
If he didn't state it, how would *you* state it?
Well, let's add PDO and ENSO to that. Plus solar variations and cosmic rays. Oh, and clouds. Then the biosphere, which actually grows more with higher concentrations of CO2. Don't forget that the imaginary "average global temperature" doesn't tell you anything about its specific distribution, which is what *really* matters.
If it was as simple as you say, the past 15 years would have resulted in increasing temps, along with increasing CO2. As it stands, we've seen a stall in any statistically significant increase. So even if your theory is right (which, of course, you haven't stated in a falsifiable way), it's at *least* complicated enough to stay stable for 15 years while CO2 rises.
Are you saying natural climate change isn't happening?
Actually, I didn't just appeal against authority, I provided a citation for exactly what the problems were with the Climategate whitewashes.
Let's take one example, Oxborough. An investigation so thorough that it ended up being 5 pages long. Here's some relevant detail on the 11 so-called representative papers they examined (and you'll of course do me the favor of actually responding to the specific allegations and problems here, rather than appealing again to authority of course):
The Committee did not issue a call for evidence. They claimed that the 11 papers they selected for examination were chosen because they “cover a period of more than twenty years and were selected on the advice of the Royal Society.” (Report paragraph 3). UK blogger Andrew Montford inquired who at the Royal Society advised on the selection. In response, the Royal Society would only state that they recommended the Committee have access to “any and all papers” they needed, but would not confirm the claim that they had selected the 11 papers specifically. It later emerged that the Royal Society did not provide any meaningful advice on the selection of papers. The actual chronology of their selection was unearthed through FOIA requests.
On 12 March 2010, UEA Vice-Chancellor Trevor Davies contacted Martin Rees of the Royal Society and Brian Hoskins (FRS) of the Hadley Centre to ask if they could say the list had been selected on the advice of the Royal Society.
Ron [Oxburgh]... is keen that we can say that it was constructed in consultation with the Royal Society. I did send you this list earlier, which I attach again here.[List obtained] They represent the core body of CRU work around which most of the assertions have been flying. They are also the publications which featured heavily in our submission to the Parliamentary Inquiry, and in our answers to the Muir Russell Review’s questions.
I would be very grateful if you would be prepared to allow us to use a form of words along the lines: “the publications were chosen in consultation with The Royal Society”.
Seven minutes later Martin Rees replied:
Dear Trevor, It seems to me that the scope of the panel’s work is a matter primarily for Ron [Oxburgh], but if Brian [Hoskins] is also happy with this choice of papers (as you know, I have no relevant expertise myself!) I see no problem with saying that the list was drawn up in consultation. best wishes Martin
Thirteen minutes later Brian Hoskins replied:
Dear Trevor I am not aware of all the papers that could be included in the list, but I do think that these papers do cover the issues of major concern. Best wishes Brian
(text of emails posted at http://climateaudit.org/2010/06/10/british-due-diligence-royal-society-style/)
That is the extent of the consultation behind the claim of the Inquiry that the papers were selected “on the advice of the Royal Society.” It is more accurate to say that the list of papers to be studied by the “independent” inquiry was drawn up by the UEA itself, and within about 20 minutes was rubber-stamped by two members of the Royal Society, both of whom cautioned that they did not have the proper expertise to do so. At no time was the list subject to any extensive examination by members of the Royal Society itself.
As for the 11 papers themselves, they were never ones that have been controversial (see http://climateaudit.org/2010/04/15/a-fair-sample/). The list also omitted the paleoclimate papers that had been subject to controversy, such as the Tornetrask and Yamal papers by Keith Briffa, and all the ‘hockey stick’-related paleoclimate papers from CRU. By focusing only on journal articles, the Oxburgh panel avoided the key question of whether CRU staff had suppressed uncertainties in WMO and IPCC Reports.
None of the 5 whitewashes actually investigated the science, conspicuously so.
For those interested in even more details: http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/rmck_climategate.pdf
The sad part here is that had the inquiries been honest, they could have possibly recovered some of their lost credibility. Instead, we now have yet again baseless appeals to authority in order to justify a non-falsifiable hypothesis.
If you want to talk about the "science" of Global Climate Change, posit your falsifiable hypothesis first. Models upon models upon fudge factors isn't science, it's entertainment.
When something as informative as the parent is modded down to zero, you know the warmists have way too many mod points on their hands.
Look, you might disagree, and disagree vehemently, but that's no excuse to mod down an obviously informative and actually quite polite comment.
Mod parent up.
Really, a two and a half page blog post with no specific refutations?
How about something like this, that actually challenges specifics of Taubes' work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM (even though for the most part, it supports the basic premise of "calories in, calories out" being a useless trope).
I wholeheartedly disagree. There is no bright line you can establish that would definitively divide objects affected by humans as "natural" or "not natural". For example, if a human moves a rock, is it now unnatural? If a human splits a rock in two, is it now unnatural? What if the human carves a face into the rock? Or smelts it into a chunk of iron?
Asserting that humans are not naturally occurring, and some arbitrary range of things they have some effect on are somehow not naturally occurring, is not a supportable position.
Your entire assertion that there is such a thing as "non-naturalistic" is your problem -> there's *no such thing* as "non-naturalistic", except in the arbitrary land of deciding what is "natural" and what is "artificial". Your attempt to paste a concept of "non-natural" is where you're getting hung up.
Now, perhaps you mean to say "natural" is something we can explain, and "non-natural" is something we can't explain (i.e., lightning and its properties are "natural", but a deity creating the universe in 6 days is "non-natural", not because it is not a part of the universe, but because we have no explanation for it that fits our understanding of the universe). You'll note that at one point in time, lightning was "non-natural", and attributed to Zeus, and later on it was "natural" and attributed to electricity generated by atmospheric conditions.
The basic axiom of the scientific method is that *everything* is natural and not subject to arbitrary changes in the laws of nature, it just might not be explained (or, quite possibly, explainable). If you cannot accept that axiom, I can understand why you can't understand the scientific process.
What is the difference between "evidence against something" and "an actual counter-example to a universal claim" and an "observation that is logically inconsistent"? Those all sound like the same thing.
A universal claim insists that something is *always* true, without condition. A non-universal claim insists that something is *always* true, with specific conditions. A non-universal claim is falsifiable if falsified within the specific conditions applied.
Universal claim: all complex life arises from simple life through random mutation and selective pressures
Non-universal claim: some complex life *can* arise from simple life through random mutation and selective pressures
You have made the error by asserting that a disproof of evolution would necessarily be a proof of creation. Evolution and creation are *not* opposing hypotheses. Your formulation of "not P" is a critical error in your understanding of evolution.
The failings of great scientists don't really improve your argume
Why would that not be naturalistic? If aliens have come to exist in this universe through natural processes, why wouldn't their activities be considered "naturalistic"? Furthermore, why would the artificial introduction of life from aliens on Sirius contradict evolution at all -> they certainly could have reached their level of intelligence and technology through evolutionary processes without aliens from the Gamma Quadrant, so on and so forth. The problem you have is that a theory of creation by aliens as the *only* method for the existence of complex or even intelligent life, asserts an untestable and unquestionable initial condition, where complex and intelligent life must exist without cause, or reason.
Of course it is falsifiable -> a specific assertion of a specific evolutionary path which leads to a specific organism *is* falsifiable. Anything from archeological to genetic evidence can demonstrate that.
You're missing an important axis here -> it is a falsifiable non-universal claim if one puts intelligent actors into a category of "not natural", and it is a falsifiable universal claim if one accepts the actions of intelligent actors in the category of "natural". When an ant colony provides selective pressure on certain plants, directing their evolution in a given direction, we tend to categorize this as "natural". When a human colony provides selective pressure on certain plants, directing their evolution in a given direction, we tend to categorize this as "artificial". In the strictest sense of the scientific word, both are "natural", because *everything* is "natural".
You're missing some important semantics here. Let me demonstrate -> P = everything in the bible is true. This is falsified clearly by our observations of geology, which puts the earth's age at much more than several thousand years. So have I now proven "everything in the bible is NOT true"? Of course not - the proof is "NOT everything in the bible is true". There can be some truth in there, and some lies in there.
Now take P = "all complex life comes from simpler life through random mutations and selective pressures". Let's say I falsify this by creating a complex life form without random mutations or selective pressures, but simply by constructing one in a laboratory. Have I now proven "all complex life DOES NOT come from simpler life through random mutations and selective pressures"? Of course not - the proof is "NOT all complex life comes from simpler life through random mutations and selective pressures". There is a *world* of difference between the two.
You're creating a false dichotomy there -> there is no difference between "supernatural" and "natural". Everything is "natural" -> that's a basic axiom of the scientific method, the assertion that the universe is governed by rules that don't arbitrarily change.
If one were to take P = this organism arose by natural processes, and NOT P = this organism did NOT arise from nat
Instead of "naturalistic" why don't we say "specific"? Furthermore, let's agree that other explanations for the existence of life are not affirmed or denied by evolution -> they must stand on their own.
But you admit that falsification of a single organism's origin won't falsify evolution in general. It may be that the platypus was in fact, designed by aliens who gained their complexity by the standard processes of evolution. Proving that *true*, even across every life form on planet earth, does not falsify the general theory that simple life can become complex life through a process of mutation and natural selection.
Furthermore, the assertion of boundaries that "can not be crossed" through mathematic probability is a poor way to approach the issue -> the guesses upon guesses of any probability still admit the *possibility*, which is distinct from falsification. It's like saying that in the derivation of pi, the probability of a hundred zeros in a row being low is equivalent to the possibility of a hundred zeros in a row is zero. Such certainly isn't the case. We design our falsifiable hypotheses so that a single observation can bring the entire edifice down - simply using statistics as a proxy for falsification isn't science.
I think you've missed the point of the analogy -> asserting that the falsification of evolution would "prove" the truth of creation is a false dichotomy. It is quite possible that *both* can be wrong, and *both* can be right. The judgement upon one of them is not a guarantee of any sort of knowledge about the other. So in terms of falsifying AGW -> let's say we proved that a trend of increasing temperatures is *not* happening because of humans. This does *not* mean we've therefore proven AGC (that humans, if they're not increasing temperatures, must be decreasing them). The same follows with evolution as a falsifiable hypothesis, and creation as a belief -> they are not opposite theories, they are two completely different things.
You touch upon an important point here -> what, shall we call the null hypothesis? We begin with the assumption that the universe lives by a constant set of rules (even though we may not know them all), and that since we have a time period, before humanity, where global warming (and cooling) have happened, we can reliably assume that non-anthropogenic climate change happened (since it happened before the existence of man). So we're not arguing from ignorance here, we're arguing from experience.
Now taking this in terms of the question "how did complex life arise from non-life?", one might reasonably ask the question as to what the null hypothesis should be considered. The answer of "creation" becomes a feedback loop, because it presupposes an intelligent life form to exist before complex life exists. If you're a believer in a circular time loop style universe, this may very well be possible, but time travel, in the back to the future sense, is fanciful and non-falsifiable (at least in any way I've
Can the general idea of "beauty" be falsified? The general idea of "light"? The general idea of "salt"? If you want to play the science game, you need to be specific.
You're not playing the game right. I could give you a million examples of artificial life created in a laboratory, but none of those examples would falsify either natural selection as a mechanism for life-form change, nor would it falsify a specific asserted evolutionary chain for a modern organism. I could build a *perfect* dog, completely artificially, starting only with base elements, and that observation couldn't possibly be asserted as a falsification that other dogs came from earlier species.
Nope, wrong again. By asserting "evolution" and "creation" as somehow opposites you're making a huge error. For example, you don't prove anthropogenic global cooling by falsifying anthropogenic global warming (maybe people just don't have *any* effect). You're playing the same game that AGW believers play -> "we've modeled everything we can think of, and the only thing that matters in the model is CO2, so it *must* be CO2". An argument from ignorance is not an argument.
You're not being specific enough in the definition of "evolution" or "natural selection".
Name one - make it as *specific* as possible.
"evolution in general" is a straw man here. State *exactly* what you're talking about. Be *specific*.
It seems that because you seen "creation" and "evolution" as mutually exclusive hypotheses (they're not, even though only one is falsifiable), you're pretty hung up on this straw man of "evolution in general". Let me give an example of the straw men I might present:
Creation: the assertion that intelligent life was designed by separate intelligence that wasn't subject to creation itself (this takes man-made creation of life off the table) - non falsifiable because it posits the existence of something that is "not natural" (an odd concept that represents the hubris of man).
Evolution: the assertion that complex life forms arise from simpler life forms, through a process of random mutation and natural selection. Speculative in the details of any given evolutionary path, but falsifiable by the existence of complex life forms without the existence of earlier, simpler life forms. The simplest life is asserted as caused by random chemical processes.
De-evolution: the assertion that simple life forms arise from complex life forms, through a process of random mutation and natural selection. Falsifiable by the existence of simple life forms without the existence of earlier, more complex life forms. The complex life is asserted as caused by random chemical processes.
I would assert that natural selection is a general hypothesis of mechanism, and for "evolution", you can have specific assertions of the effect of natural selection on related species, but ultimately, those details of specific evolutions, wrong or right in any given instance, can't be considered a falsification of the hypothesis of mechanism. In either case, be it a falsifiable hypothesis of natural selection (general), or a falsifiable hypothesis of a specific evolutionary path, the falsification of *either* would not imply creationism is true, useful or scientific.
If you choose to state it as a tautology, of course "natural selection" cannot be considered a falsifiable hypothesis. But that isn't your only choice.
That's semantics. The process of science applies to large hypotheses as well as small ones.
You're being much too broad. Put another way, what do you think the sentence "most scientists wouldn't know *how* to search for evidence against religion" means? Which specific religion? What specific religious claim? You can't search for evidence against "evolution" because you haven't defined it. You certainly can search for evidence against evolutionary links between specific species (panda bears and raccoons, for example, while phenotypically similar with the natural eye shadow, aren't very closely related). You can search for evidence against specific natural selection mechanisms.
The specifics here *matter*, and you're simply glossing over them. But you tell me -> *how* would *you* search for evidence against "evolution"?
Don't mistake "creationism" as a falsification of natural selection -> falsification of natural selection wouldn't make creationism true, nor would it make creationism science. You're mistakenly positing these two positions as competing scientific hypotheses, but that isn't the case -> natural selection is a falsifiable hypothesis; creationism is a faith.
But that being said, yes, scientists are always trying to falsify natural selection, by searching for fossils and other evidence that might refute it...such as a rabbit fossil in the pre-cambrian. Some falsification happens on a much more esoteric level (like Lamarckian models being applicable to changes that are passed on through mother's behavior that changes the uterine environment), but no scientist of natural selection has ever said, "stop collecting fossils, stop searching for evidence we might be wrong, just pack it up and go home guys!"
You're gonna have to do better than that. Addressing his article from ages ago is nice, but limited. Addressing his "Good Calories, Bad Calories" work, now that's another thing.
Here's Gary's actual response to the specious attacks you note:
http://reason.com/archives/2003/03/01/an-exercise-in-vitriol-rather
The whole point of the "cherry-picking" you're criticizing is to debunk the conventional wisdom -> and all it takes is a single refutation of the "calories in, calories out" hypothesis to make it false.
If you had an ounce of integrity, you would not ignore the single refutations that falsify your thesis :)
Exactly what about Taubes' presentation do you dispute? The Kreb's cycle? The effect of insulin on fat accumulation? The history of the Pima indians and other indigenous peoples who became obese while utterly impoverished (in contrast to the "we're so wealthy we have so much to eat so we're fat" trope")?
Sounds like you've got some hand waving going on here, but no specific rebuttals to either Tabues' premise (i.e., obesity is a disorder of fat accumulation driven by the hormone insulin, not a function of "calories in, calories out"), or his citations of the scientific evidence.
Name just one specific dispute you have, I'm very interested in why you reject his skepticism and point by point falsification of the conventional wisdom.