Monitoring "race" is like monitoring "favorite NFL team" - it's none of my employer's or my government's business. Neither is the particular amount of skin pigment I might have, or how curly my hair is.
The way to counter systematic discrimination is to refuse to buy into the tired trope that "race" is anything but an arbitrary and worthless division of people.
"The big scary headline claim in almost all of these alarmist articles which screamed that the rate of Antarctica ice loss has “doubled” compared to prior estimates is wrong. The alarmist reporters have managed to confuse two distinct issues addressed in this latest study which dealt with both continental Antarctic ice loss as well as the contribution of this Antarctica ice loss to sea level rise.
This latest study (abstract link below) clearly establishes that the continental Antarctica ice loss estimates based on past satellite gravimetry surveys are “consistent” with the latest study radar altimetry total ice loss findings. Specifically the full study says:
“At the continental scale, the most recent estimates of Antarctic ice sheet mass balance are based solely on satellite gravimetry surveys [Barletta and Bordoni, 2013; Velicogna and Wahr, 2013; Williams et al., 2014]. According to these studies, the rate of ice mass loss from Antarctica has increased progressively over the past decade and, between 2010 and 2012, fell in the approximate central range 105 to 130 Gt yr-1. Our survey puts the contemporary rate of Antarctic ice sheet mass loss at 159 ± 48 Gt yr-1, a value that, although larger, is nevertheless consistent given the spread of the gravimetry-based uncertainties (16 to 80 Gt yr-1). A possible explanation for the discrepancy is the exceptional snowfall event of 2009, which saw an additional ~200 Gt of mass deposited in East Antarctica [Boening et al., 2012; Lenaerts et al., 2013; Shepherd et al., 2012] that, although absent from the CryoSat-2 record, does factor in the gravimetry-based estimates of imbalance.”
"A hot-topic in the media these days has to do with the West Antarctic Ice Shelf (WAIS), a region comprising about 8% of the ice covering Antarctica. Within that region, there are two glaciers that are sliding down to the sea at a steady pace, as glaciers always do. They comprise about 10% of the WAIS, less than 1% of Antarctic ice. This descent has been in progress for several thousand years, and is neither new nor man-caused. It will go on for a few thousand more, after which they’ll be gone. In the parlance of geology, those two glaciers are collapsing."
When the IPCC says there's a 95-100% chance that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming between 1951-2010 isn't that a falsifiable hypothesis?
No. You haven't mentioned any observations that would falsify it. It's an assertion.
I don't think that counts for events where we don't have sufficient data.
You doubt the ice core record and the changes of ice ages?
That sounds a lot like the god of the gaps, we can't account for every minor natural forcing so we can't make conclusions about the major forcings.
You've got it the other way around - the god of the gaps is "unless you account for every minor and major natural forcing, you must believe that it was my god of CO2 that did it". Much like creationists say "unless you account for every step of evolution for every organism, you must believe that it was my god that did it".
And every observation with evolution is consistent with ID. AGW is the only good theory that explains all those observations
Every observation of evolution is consistent with ID because ID has no falsifications - it explains *everything*.
Every observation of global temperature and CO2 is consistent with AGW because AGW has no falsifications - it explains *everything*.
They're saying here's a theory backed by a ton of observations and has imperfectly predicted warming for decades. And no one has been able to offer an alternate theory for what's happening.
Astrology has tons of observations too - what it doesn't have is falsifiability:)
As for the alternate theory, again, you're arguing the god of the gaps - if we can't enumerate all the details, we must believe it's your God:)
Let's not forget the null hypothesis, which to date, has not been excluded - natural climate change.
And you know what, that's okay! But I would've expected *someone* to have been this motivated already. Given the billions of dollars of research done in climate science, you would've thought *someone* would've done it already if it was possible.
My bet here is that two things happened:
1) latecomers just assumed it was there;
2) the early proponents were more politically motivated, and glossed over the politically inconvenient fact that their hypothesis wasn't falsifiable.
1. A drop in global temperatures for some period of time to the level of 50 years ago or longer, without a clear cause
We've already seen that in the ice core record. Certainly nobody claims they have any sort of climate model that accurately hind casts ice ages.
2. A drop in global sea level for some period of time
Same as #1.
3. A strong rise or decline in the atmospheric CO2 level
Same as #1.
4. The discovery that climate forcings in the past were much larger, or temperature changes much smaller, than science thinks
Argument from ignorance. Just because we can't enumerate all natural causes of climate change doesn't mean that we must find them to disprove the pet theory that human CO2 emissions overwhelm all natural factors.
5. Warming of the stratosphere
No reason this cannot happen naturally.
6. Major errors in equipment in satellites, measuring outgoing long wave radiation
Again, no reason why measured outgoing long wave radiation cannot be a natural phenomenon.
7. Evidence of a substantial fall of relative humidity with rising temperature
Same as #5 and 6, but more importantly, this is one of the grand failures of GCMs that assume a feedback effect from CO2 to water vapor. The predicted humidity increases haven't happened.
8. A source of heat in the climate system that we do not know yet
Another argument from ignorance.
9. A fundamental flaw in the scientific understanding of radiation physics or thermodynamics
Necessary, but certainly not sufficient. You could claim that if the speed of light is wrong, then astrology is debunked, but the speed of light itself, or any other physical constant, does not imply a complex theory must be true.
10. CO2 molecules appear to behave differently in the wild, than they do in a laboratory
Same as #9
VERY good cite though! They're thinking in the right direction, but haven't made a convincing argument yet. They've certainly hit some *necessary* components (like the spectral constants of CO2), but they cannot reverse the burden of proof and insist we must enumerate all other climate influences before giving up on the central conceit that CO2 from humans drives climate.
Congrats, you've demonstrated that climate is complex, which means you can't really give a one or two line hypothesis, which according to you means climate science doesn't exist.
No, I'm happy to have a multiple line hypothesis. Heck, take a few paragraphs if you need to. Pages even! But the hypothesis shall be falsifiable, contain specific observations that would falsify the hypothesis, and a logical argument that the *lack* of those observations can only lead us to conclude the hypothesis is true.
So your definition of evolution seems to be moving further from a testable hypothesis.
It's absolutely testable - finding an anachronistic fossil in the precambrian, such as that of a modern rabbit, would falsify it.
You seem to think that "test" means "lab experiment" - they really aren't the same thing. You can test a hypothesis by making a falsifiable prediction, and looking for observations that match - astrophysics is filled with stuff like that, since obviously we can't just setup experiments of solar systems and galaxies.
But you need the falsifiable prediction. No fair going, "if I see more droughts here, or if I see more floods here, AGW is right!" or "if Cancers are sometimes honest, but other times dishonest, astrology is right!"
Btw, here's another necessary and mostly sufficient falsifiable hypothesis. The majority of the warming in the past 100 years can be attributed to human CO2 emissions.
What observations would falsify that hypothesis? You're simply making a blanket assertion, providing no observations which would show that the vast majority of warming in the past 100 years was *not* attributed to human CO2 emissions!
Now, here's one that would be better - given the vast majority of human CO2 emissions happened after 1950, we shall exclude any warming rates *before* 1950 greater or equal to those *after* 1950. If we see any such warming rates before 1950, we shall conclude that human CO2 emissions are not the primary cause of warming since 1950.
Futhermore, the amount of warming from 1914 - 1950 shall be attributed to natural causes, and if it represents a majority of the warming of the past 100 years, our hypothesis shall also fail.
Of course, the problem is, we've already observed the failure of this particular hypothesis - rates of warming pre-1950 and post-1950 are largely similar. The other problem is that even this *better* hypothesis statement doesn't exclude natural warming changing in the same predicted manner (after all, it's perfectly possible for the world naturally to warm in one mode from 1914-1950, and in another mode from 1950-2014, through natural processes we haven't cataloged or been able to model).
Falsifiability is hard, but it is *key*. Your hypothesis statement needs more work - and arguably, more work just might help! But my estimation is, after years of looking at all the experts in the field, none of which has ever put forth a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW, is that despite billions upon billions of dollars spent, it just isn't possible. If it was, the IPCC would already have it in their documentation.
There's no scientific consensus about the effects of violence on TV.
There's as much consensus with violence on TV as there is with AGW:)
The climate scientists don't strike me as the people to be and spectacularly wrong as you suggest.
That's awfully optimistic of you:) I've got a lot of respect for Judith Curry (a lukewarm), but not so much for Michael Mann.:)
Show that CO2 doesn't trap heat in the atmosphere, and it's back to the drawing board.
That's part of it, but not all of it - if CO2 levels are actually moderated by ocean temperatures, rather than the other way around say, then it's also back to the drawing board. And there are certainly others - you've got to add much more:)
But how do you prove evolution over millions of years?
Let's be precise on what we mean by "evolution" - we're really talking about natural selection moving from simplicity to complexity and other adaptations. Evolution is not the precise claim of a chain of steps from prokaryotes to humans, or any other arbitrary life form, but a specification of how such chains can happen.
In terms of AGW, meteorology to explain why it rained last tuesday in Padova is a specific assertion of an evolutionary chain; the whole of "AGW" therefore is the parallel to the whole of evolution by natural selection.
I'm certain you're not suggesting that in order to make AGW falsifiable you have to have a falsifiable hypothesis for every moment of weather in all history:)
Bottom line is this - the argument isn't that AGW can't possibly be true, the argument is that AGW is thus far lacking the very first step of the scientific method - the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
Not that I agree with everything this guy says, but here's an interesting recent article on hard and soft sciences that touches on this: http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
So you're basically stating it's impossible for science to determine whether pumping CO2 into the atmosphere will make the earth warmer.
Actually, I'm making a more nuanced statement - it's impossible for science to determine whether pumping CO2 into the atmosphere will make the earth *significantly* or *detectably* warmer.
It's like saying, "it's impossible for science to determine whether watching G.I. joe as a child will make someone more likely to murder" - theoretically, with a robust enough measuring network, and enough understanding about they myriad factors that makes someone a murderer, you could tease apart these inputs. We know that, in general, violence on TV correlates with murderous behavior, but separating that from other causal factors is surely beyond any practical scientific measure.
So should we ban violence on TV, and censor the airwaves everywhere, just in case?:)
Funny how instead of addressing the argument you use an ad hominem against Issac Asimov.
Well, let's follow his argument - once upon a time scientists thought humans were causing global cooling. They were wrong. Today, some scientists believe we are causing global warming. They're still wrong, but certainly not as wrong as the scientists who claimed an ice age was upon us. Some day in the future, scientists will isolate other factors that cause climate change, and in some way they'll be wrong too, but certainly not as wrong as those who claimed that our activity would create an ice age, or that our activity would create a runaway greenhouse.
Now here's a challenge to you - by what measure would you decide that someone was wrong on their central conceit, so that you could compare wrongness by some metric?
Explain to me why evolution is science and AGW isn't.
Evolution is falsifiable. Find a modern rabbit in the precambrian, and it's back to the drawing board. At that point, you either need to assert time travel exists, or that the rabbit fossil was placed there by aliens, or some other equivalent to god.
Even those rates are far from apocalyptic...moreover, the instability mentioned predates humanity's large CO2 emissions, so it represents *natural* sea level rise. It *asserts* that humanity shares the blame, without being able to quantify it, or provide a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis for their assertions.
Here's the irony - natural climate change will provide all kinds of changes, and nothing proposed by CO2-haters will stop it. So if there *is* an apocalypse coming, there's nothing we can do to stop it, and hitting the brakes on our world economy in an attempt to mollify the gods of global warming will only reduce our ability to adapt to the pending apocalypse.
Now I get it, the argument is "well, even if peeing in the reservoir is undetectable, we must do something symbolic to appease the masses" (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/17/portland-flush-38m-gallons-water-man-urinates-reservoir). I just find that argument unconvincing.
I find it odd you use the word "status quo" though in reference to others, but not yourself. You seem to believe that right now, at this moment, we have the *perfect* sea level, and we should do all in our power to stop it from ever changing again. If anything, you've arbitrarily decided that the status quo must be preserved at all costs, despite the utter impossibility of stopping natural climate changes.
Assuming that sea level change is going to increase exponentially without end based on a tiny observational period is just as unjustified as assuming speed limits are going to increase exponentially without end based on a tiny observational period.
Look, we know sea levels change - they have before humanity, and they will long after humanity is gone. Automatically assuming that those changes are going to be catastrophic, and that our actions are to blame, is the impulse of the worst apocalyptic cults.
Which brings us back to the fact the only hypothesis you'd accept is impossible to falsify until it happens.
Not at all. In fact "it happens" (in terms of the globe warming over any given period of time), could very well be 100% natural, so the trick with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis is that you need to *exclude* the natural explanation (not simply wish it away).
Did you miss the point of the Asimov essay?
Sadly, though Asimov was a great writer, he wasn't much of a scientist:) Arguably, he was a luddite, but I still love his prose.
I can insist AGW is scientific because a single "necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW" is not feasible.
The fact that such a grand hypothesis is infeasible is a clue that like the grand hypothesis of astrology, it isn't scientific:)
The scientific method is basically a system of critical evidence based reasoning.
And the first step of science, its very cornerstone, that which it cannot do without, is falsifiability.
Without falsifiability, no amount of critical reasoning can work - the lack of falsifiability *precludes* the discovery of truth, because observations have no meaning - when *any* observation can be "explained" by a hypothesis, it ceases to be science.
The basic concept of AGW is simple, more CO2 in the atmosphere means more trapped heat, at a certain point this causes secondary factors to kick in and trap even more heat,
And exactly what observations would show that in fact, CO2 doesn't drive secondary factors, or that CO2 drivers are overwhelmed by natural variations?
Furthermore, logically explain how the *lack* of those observations leaves us *only* with human CO2 as the culprit.
You've already admitted the complexity and uncertainty of the climate system - the fact that you would believe such a simple formulation is contradictory to the points you've already conceded to.
Does CO2 do what we'd expect? Yes. Does the atmosphere emit radiation the way we'd expect? Yes. Is the atmosphere warming as we expect? Yes. Is it warming at the precise rate we expect? Not quite. Is the ice melting as we expect? Mostly.
I refer you to Feynman again - it isn't about *expectations*. The fact that CO2, and atmospheric emissions of radiation, and warming, and rates of warming, and ice melting could all *also* be due to natural variation means we haven't yet covered our foundational responsibility of the scientific method, falsifiability. Lots of things are "consistent with" or "expected" by astrology - that doesn't make it science.
Instead your line of reasoning seems to be. We can't easily test it, therefore all the science is junk, therefore it isn't happening!
No, my line of reasoning is this - we can't tell through observation whether or not our hypothesis is true or not (because *all* observations are "consistent with" our hypothesis), therefore, the hypothesis isn't scientific.
The tests don't have to be *easy* - they could be horribly complex, requiring all kinds of satellite technology, or radiocarbon dating, or intense data collection. However, the *must* exist.
You'll respond, "well, i've got lots of little tests!", but then make the clever, but unconvincing, claim that any little test that fails isn't enough to invalidate your central conceit. Much like an astrologist making 365 predictions in a year, and claiming that *all 365* must be wrong for his central conceit to be wrong.
Science is science, and it requires falsifiability, regardless of how difficult that bar is. Hunches, gu
Astrology isn't a single hypothesis but a general model for human interaction.
So, what you're saying is AGW isn't a single hypothesis but a general model for weather and climate.
And, even though these models fail, we still believe in AGW:)
AGW related theories predicted the ice caps would melt, they are. The ice extent increased which requires refinement, but to say the hypothesis was disproven is imprecise.
Any natural warming would also predict the ice caps would melt.
Your theory requires more than just refinement, it requires a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis:)
Someone should have my physics 114 prof that Newtonian physics was thrown away because he spent a lot of the course teaching us Newtonian physics.
Certainly not at relativistic speeds, right?:)
Natural climate change is certainly quite possible. That's why the IPCC estimates its probability.
The problem is the probability of their probability estimate:) With no necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis, they have no way to validate their estimates at all:)
In one instance its cargo cult because they won't allow any contrary information to be published, in the next instance its cargo cult because they're constantly disproving all their theories.
Both are certainly true - pal review lets specious papers into the published record, keeps out contradictory ones, and whenever a pal reviewed paper is debunked, it's simply derided as "inconsequential" to the larger hypothesis.
My argument, which you've conceded to, is that there is no necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW. Once you've admitted that, how can you insist that AGW is scientific, without opening up the way for accepting astrology and other cargo cult science?
So I assume you were talking about a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for their research, not the entirety of AGW at once.
So no, no one has achieved your impossible standard.
Aha! An admission at last!
Yes, an astrologist making the claim that Cancers get along with Leos may have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for their research, but of course, even if they're proven wrong, that doesn't prove astrology wrong, correct?:)
This is *exactly* not science. Asserting that AGW is supported by all these lesser hypotheses, and that it survives no matter how many of these lesser hypotheses are disproven, is the textbook definition of unfalsifiable:)
How did relativity go?
Einstein proposed it, people looked it over, proposed alternatives, proposed experiments, and eventually all came around to agreeing.
And just what part of that required that physicists maintain a consistent message?:)
You're saying relativity got proposed, generally accepted, and then decades later everyone threw it away and went back to square one.
No, I'm saying newtonian physics got proposed, was generally accepted, and then decades later everyone threw it away and accepted relativity:)
But surely you're not asserting that climate science is anywhere near as useful, reliable, or scientific as relativity, are you?:)
There's feedbacks, oceans, clouds, multiple layers of atmosphere, ice, people doing unpredictable things to the whole system, etc.
Very good point. Seems impossible to rule out natural climate change, doesn't it, given those uncertainties:)
There's a fundamental complexity you can't ignore, that's why you need thousands of papers studying every detail and then things like the IPCC report to collect it into a whole.
That's cargo cult science:) Thousands of papers. All of them "consistent with". None of them "consequential" if they're disproven.
Take the ten million people who read their astrological chart today. Take the fundamental complexity of people. Say even a small fraction, just several thousand, had astrological charts that matched *perfectly* with reality.
Of course your sources contradict me - they're preaching a religious mantra without a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, and they refuse to admit that observations don't match their predictions.
Fact: 1914 was colder that 2014.
Fact: By any measure of "catastrophe", 1914 was worse than 2014. We have larger population, a higher standard of living, better technology, better control over diseases, more food, and a host of other *great* advances for humanity.
Do you have *any* evidence that 1914 was in fact *better* for humanity, or even the *entire biosphere* than 2014?
If you can't prove that the world was a better place before human CO2 emissions were significant, why should we believe that the apocalypse is coming with some mild warming?
It's a fact so obvious and innocuous that no one bothers to comment on it.
Now that's an ingenious defense of a failure to produce evidence:) "Oh, your honor, we don't have the murder weapon, but it's obvious since there was a murder, there was a weapon, so let's just not comment on it!":)
I'm sure theists believe that God's existence is so obvious and innocuous that nobody should question it either:)
The problem is you take up the contrary revolutionary position on every scientific question, that's a very reliable method for being wrong.
Really? It seems more obvious that contrary revolutionary positions is what has driven science forward:) Germs? What germs? Evolution? What evolution? Relativity? What relativity?:)
Here's the deal - where science has gone wrong has been when falsifiability has been compromised, and a "consistent message" has been the rule for the day, rather than the required skepticism of dogma that every scientist should practice:)
So a general hypothesis that the earth will warm in several decades isn't valid because it's not falsifiable for several decades.
No, it's not valid because it is not *sufficient*. Yes, a warming earth is *necessary* for AGW to be true, but you cannot simply assert that observed warming is not *natural*. That's a horse of a different color.
What's the point if you've created an impossible standard for a hypothesis or evidence?
It's not an impossible standard - there must be a set of observations excluded by the hypothesis, and a logical argument why the lack of those observations must lead *only* to the conclusion of the hypothesis. AGW has neither.
When an observation clashes with theory you go back and figure out why. Is the observation wrong? Is the theory wrong? Is it wrong in general or is there a special case responsible for this observation. That's not special pleading, that's science
AGW is filled with nothing but special pleadings. A theory with nothing but special pleadings isn't science, it's cargo-cult science:
"There is one feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science.... It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty — a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid — not only what you think is right about it; other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked — to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated. Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can — if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong — to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.
Nope. unless that religion is called common sense.
So it's common sense to hold onto a belief even if observations contradict it?:)
I'm simply advocating that we reduce risk by not blindly ignoring what 96% of the worlds foremost experts are telling us is a real threat, That is enough of a significant number that anyone should take seriously.
So if 96% of the world's theologians tell you gay marriage is a real threat, we should take that seriously?:)
Science is not consensus:)
I'm not sure how you an accuse me of having religion when you clearly have most bizarre blind faith that totally destroying the environment will somehow magically have no more inconvenient effect on humans than that of an infected pinky finger.
CO2 is not totally destroying the environment:) Neither is a small increase in global average temperature - just take a look at say, population and crop yields from 2014 compared to 1914 when the world was cooler - how exactly do you measure harm during that interval if we've reduced disease, death and poverty in that interval?
You're simply practicing another version of an apocalyptic religion, dressed up in lab coats instead of priest collars:)
What about the billions that will starve when we can't grow crops anymore, or those that will die directly from entire regions being hit hard with VERY extreme weather patterns?
Blaming weather on CO2 emissions is like blaming droughts on gods of the harvest who are angry:)
You want to grow crops better? Thank the Haber process. Thank cheap energy.
You wrap yourself in this cloak of righteousness, like some zealot of the Catholic church in the 17th century, and expect us to simply take for granted that your *massive* promise of harm is outweighed by some completely imaginary set of catastrophes unobserved in the data.
Want to play science? Want to lose your religion? Start off with the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement - that's the first step of the scientific process. It doesn't start with a poll of experts, or a voice vote of consensus - it starts with *falsifiability*.
Your first cite shows someone changing their mind - it doesn't have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement:)
Heck, people convert to Christianity all the time, but that doesn't make Christianity science:)
Are you the one of the Taubes followers?
The insulin hypothesis is backed up by observations - the fat-heart hypothesis is not. Taubes is just reporting the science, he's not making it.
The fact of the matter is that even if we are "correcting", it's taken us over 40 years - by that measure, we'll finally realize the error of AGW in about 20 more years:)
So 97% of climate scientists agreeing isn't consensus
In specific "Satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation". CO2 trapping more heat in the atmosphere means that there will be less radiation emitted from the atmosphere in the related wavelength. That's a falsifiable hypothesis and it's a hypothesis they tested by looking at the thermal radiation.
That certainly may be *necessary* for AGW to be true, but it's clearly not *sufficient*. Heck, it doesn't even begin to touch on the origins of CO2, or the lack of any sort of relation between human CO2 emissions and measured CO2 levels (CO2 emissions vary widely both seasonally and yearly, but global CO2 levels have been monotonically increasing, as if governed by completely different drivers than simply human input).
Futhermore, the outgoing longwave radiation hypothesis is, in fact, subject to significant question:
"We further examine the impact of cloud overlapping assumptions on the results of linear regression of spectral differences with respect to predefined spectral fingerprints. Cloud-relevant regression coefficients are affected more by different cloud overlapping assumptions than regression coefficients of other geophysical variables. These findings highlight the challenges in constructing realistic longwave spectral fingerprints and in detecting climate change using all-sky observations."
So there's a question as to whether or not anyone has constructed a "realistic longwave spectral fingerprint".
But here's the real problem - your SS cite throws a bunch of stuff at the wall, but does not actually specify falsification observations. And if you're honest, you'll admit that when there *are* observations of falsifications, the AGW trope is protected by ad hoc special pleadings asserting that they aren't "consequential":) It's a very typical astrology trick:)
This is contradicted by almost every external scientist who starts to investigate the literature.
Find me a single "external scientist" who investigated the literature, and found a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW. Just one.
The insistence that we must act came because the science suggests we might act.
This happened once before with another corrupt scientist - Ancel Keys. His notorious "7 countries study" asserted a link between dietary fat intake and heart disease. As it turned out, his results were only caused by deleting data to "hide the decline" as it were. His ruthless pursuit of power led him to positions at the heart of government that led eventually to our dietary advice for lower-fat, and higher carbohydrate intake. He demanded that we act because the "science suggested" that there was a link between heart disease and dietary fat intake. In fact, he was wrong, and sent our country on an over 40 year path of increasing obesity, diabetes, cancer, heart disease and other chronic diseases.
Science does not suggest action - it leads us to truth. We have not been led to the truth by people pursing the AGW message.
You insist on any sign of inconsistency as proof there's no scientific consensus, then when they try to form a consistent message you indict them for that as well.
*EXACTLY THIS*. We've proven there is no such thing as "scientific consensus" on AGW (nor is science driven by consensus). So *of course* we're going to indict them when they try to form a "consistent message" when the *FACTS* contradict that message!
As for your 'falsifiable hypothesis' nonsense, almost *every* AGW paper is going to be making falsifiable hypothesis, what the hell do you think they're publishing if they don't have a hypothesis?
Quote a *SINGLE* one. Find me a single AGW paper that says "if we observe this, that, or the other, AGW is false, and if we *fail* to observe this, that, or the other, we must logically conclude AGW is true".
Just for fun, you'll note that I made my hypotheses falsifiable - "there is no AGW paper with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW" is falsified by a *single* observation of an AGW paper with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW. Find just *one*, and I'll admit I'm wrong:) Of course, since this is a simple hypothesis, you can logically see how if you can't even find *one*, then it's very likely that my hypothesis is true - the logical case for AGW would of course have to be more complex in order to show that the lacking observations couldn't also happen with natural climate change.
One more thing to add - our thinking and thought processes are not simply neurons, it includes influence from many of the other non-neural cells of our body. The thought that we can simply model neurons, and have a human brain is silly - the rest of the organs and cells need to be simulated too because they have an impact on exactly how the neurons operate.
So if you want to really push out the math, figure out what you need to model just *one* cell, and multiply it by 37.2 trillion. Intelligence requires more than neurons.
They're still doing good science, they could do better science, but you can't politically charge an issue, attack the scientists, and then blame them when they start considering political messaging.
Most AGW proponents are doing shoddy science at best, failing to do even basic things like version control data. Some of the best work is done by skeptic scientists, like Curry, or Lindzen - and it makes sense since they need to be completely above board before getting through the gauntlet of "pal-review" that gives a pass to anyone who plays to the party line.
Remember, the political charge on this came *first*, with the insistence that "we must act" and that "it's worse than we thought" - the fact that their predictions have contradicted observations has only caused them to circle the wagons more fervently, and that *increase* in political style messaging, rather than some well deserved humility that would be the proper response, is only exacerbating the issue.
If you want to show me someone doing good science here, find me *any* necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW from *any* paper at *any* time in history. Just one.
AGW represents science being subservient to politics, and the problem with politics is that you can never admit error (we've got a similar problem with fat and carbohydrates and the past 40 years of 'low-fat' advice from the government).
Slashdot Mirror
Monitoring "race" is like monitoring "favorite NFL team" - it's none of my employer's or my government's business. Neither is the particular amount of skin pigment I might have, or how curly my hair is.
The way to counter systematic discrimination is to refuse to buy into the tired trope that "race" is anything but an arbitrary and worthless division of people.
Our race is "human", period.
Race is an illusion. It's none of my employer's business where my ancestors may have hailed from.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
"The big scary headline claim in almost all of these alarmist articles which screamed that the rate of Antarctica ice loss has “doubled” compared to prior estimates is wrong. The alarmist reporters have managed to confuse two distinct issues addressed in this latest study which dealt with both continental Antarctic ice loss as well as the contribution of this Antarctica ice loss to sea level rise.
This latest study (abstract link below) clearly establishes that the continental Antarctica ice loss estimates based on past satellite gravimetry surveys are “consistent” with the latest study radar altimetry total ice loss findings. Specifically the full study says:
“At the continental scale, the most recent estimates of Antarctic ice sheet mass balance are based solely on satellite gravimetry surveys [Barletta and Bordoni, 2013; Velicogna and Wahr, 2013; Williams et al., 2014]. According to these studies, the rate of ice mass loss from Antarctica has increased progressively over the past decade and, between 2010 and 2012, fell in the approximate central range 105 to 130 Gt yr-1. Our survey puts the contemporary rate of Antarctic ice sheet mass loss at 159 ± 48 Gt yr-1, a value that, although larger, is nevertheless consistent given the spread of the gravimetry-based uncertainties (16 to 80 Gt yr-1). A possible explanation for the discrepancy is the exceptional snowfall event of 2009, which saw an additional ~200 Gt of mass deposited in East Antarctica [Boening et al., 2012; Lenaerts et al., 2013; Shepherd et al., 2012] that, although absent from the CryoSat-2 record, does factor in the gravimetry-based estimates of imbalance.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com..."
An endless line of guys needing to pee :) Not sure if I buy the analogy, but it's funny :)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
"A hot-topic in the media these days has to do with the West Antarctic Ice Shelf (WAIS), a region comprising about 8% of the ice covering Antarctica. Within that region, there are two glaciers that are sliding down to the sea at a steady pace, as glaciers always do. They comprise about 10% of the WAIS, less than 1% of Antarctic ice. This descent has been in progress for several thousand years, and is neither new nor man-caused. It will go on for a few thousand more, after which they’ll be gone. In the parlance of geology, those two glaciers are collapsing."
No. You haven't mentioned any observations that would falsify it. It's an assertion.
You doubt the ice core record and the changes of ice ages?
You've got it the other way around - the god of the gaps is "unless you account for every minor and major natural forcing, you must believe that it was my god of CO2 that did it". Much like creationists say "unless you account for every step of evolution for every organism, you must believe that it was my god that did it".
Every observation of evolution is consistent with ID because ID has no falsifications - it explains *everything*.
Every observation of global temperature and CO2 is consistent with AGW because AGW has no falsifications - it explains *everything*.
Astrology has tons of observations too - what it doesn't have is falsifiability :)
As for the alternate theory, again, you're arguing the god of the gaps - if we can't enumerate all the details, we must believe it's your God :)
Let's not forget the null hypothesis, which to date, has not been excluded - natural climate change.
And you know what, that's okay! But I would've expected *someone* to have been this motivated already. Given the billions of dollars of research done in climate science, you would've thought *someone* would've done it already if it was possible.
My bet here is that two things happened:
1) latecomers just assumed it was there;
2) the early proponents were more politically motivated, and glossed over the politically inconvenient fact that their hypothesis wasn't falsifiable.
We've already seen that in the ice core record. Certainly nobody claims they have any sort of climate model that accurately hind casts ice ages.
Same as #1.
Same as #1.
Argument from ignorance. Just because we can't enumerate all natural causes of climate change doesn't mean that we must find them to disprove the pet theory that human CO2 emissions overwhelm all natural factors.
No reason this cannot happen naturally.
Again, no reason why measured outgoing long wave radiation cannot be a natural phenomenon.
Same as #5 and 6, but more importantly, this is one of the grand failures of GCMs that assume a feedback effect from CO2 to water vapor. The predicted humidity increases haven't happened.
Another argument from ignorance.
Necessary, but certainly not sufficient. You could claim that if the speed of light is wrong, then astrology is debunked, but the speed of light itself, or any other physical constant, does not imply a complex theory must be true.
Same as #9
VERY good cite though! They're thinking in the right direction, but haven't made a convincing argument yet. They've certainly hit some *necessary* components (like the spectral constants of CO2), but they cannot reverse the burden of proof and insist we must enumerate all other climate influences before giving up on the central conceit that CO2 from humans drives climate.
No, I'm happy to have a multiple line hypothesis. Heck, take a few paragraphs if you need to. Pages even! But the hypothesis shall be falsifiable, contain specific observations that would falsify the hypothesis, and a logical argument that the *lack* of those observations can only lead us to conclude the hypothesis is true.
It's absolutely testable - finding an anachronistic fossil in the precambrian, such as that of a modern rabbit, would falsify it.
You seem to think that "test" means "lab experiment" - they really aren't the same thing. You can test a hypothesis by making a falsifiable prediction, and looking for observations that match - astrophysics is filled with stuff like that, since obviously we can't just setup experiments of solar systems and galaxies.
But you need the falsifiable prediction. No fair going, "if I see more droughts here, or if I see more floods here, AGW is right!" or "if Cancers are sometimes honest, but other times dishonest, astrology is right!"
What observations would falsify that hypothesis? You're simply making a blanket assertion, providing no observations which would show that the vast majority of warming in the past 100 years was *not* attributed to human CO2 emissions!
Now, here's one that would be better - given the vast majority of human CO2 emissions happened after 1950, we shall exclude any warming rates *before* 1950 greater or equal to those *after* 1950. If we see any such warming rates before 1950, we shall conclude that human CO2 emissions are not the primary cause of warming since 1950.
Futhermore, the amount of warming from 1914 - 1950 shall be attributed to natural causes, and if it represents a majority of the warming of the past 100 years, our hypothesis shall also fail.
Of course, the problem is, we've already observed the failure of this particular hypothesis - rates of warming pre-1950 and post-1950 are largely similar. The other problem is that even this *better* hypothesis statement doesn't exclude natural warming changing in the same predicted manner (after all, it's perfectly possible for the world naturally to warm in one mode from 1914-1950, and in another mode from 1950-2014, through natural processes we haven't cataloged or been able to model).
Falsifiability is hard, but it is *key*. Your hypothesis statement needs more work - and arguably, more work just might help! But my estimation is, after years of looking at all the experts in the field, none of which has ever put forth a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW, is that despite billions upon billions of dollars spent, it just isn't possible. If it was, the IPCC would already have it in their documentation.
There's as much consensus with violence on TV as there is with AGW :)
That's awfully optimistic of you :) I've got a lot of respect for Judith Curry (a lukewarm), but not so much for Michael Mann. :)
That's part of it, but not all of it - if CO2 levels are actually moderated by ocean temperatures, rather than the other way around say, then it's also back to the drawing board. And there are certainly others - you've got to add much more :)
Let's be precise on what we mean by "evolution" - we're really talking about natural selection moving from simplicity to complexity and other adaptations. Evolution is not the precise claim of a chain of steps from prokaryotes to humans, or any other arbitrary life form, but a specification of how such chains can happen.
In terms of AGW, meteorology to explain why it rained last tuesday in Padova is a specific assertion of an evolutionary chain; the whole of "AGW" therefore is the parallel to the whole of evolution by natural selection.
I'm certain you're not suggesting that in order to make AGW falsifiable you have to have a falsifiable hypothesis for every moment of weather in all history :)
Bottom line is this - the argument isn't that AGW can't possibly be true, the argument is that AGW is thus far lacking the very first step of the scientific method - the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
Not that I agree with everything this guy says, but here's an interesting recent article on hard and soft sciences that touches on this: http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
Actually, I'm making a more nuanced statement - it's impossible for science to determine whether pumping CO2 into the atmosphere will make the earth *significantly* or *detectably* warmer.
It's like saying, "it's impossible for science to determine whether watching G.I. joe as a child will make someone more likely to murder" - theoretically, with a robust enough measuring network, and enough understanding about they myriad factors that makes someone a murderer, you could tease apart these inputs. We know that, in general, violence on TV correlates with murderous behavior, but separating that from other causal factors is surely beyond any practical scientific measure.
So should we ban violence on TV, and censor the airwaves everywhere, just in case? :)
Well, let's follow his argument - once upon a time scientists thought humans were causing global cooling. They were wrong. Today, some scientists believe we are causing global warming. They're still wrong, but certainly not as wrong as the scientists who claimed an ice age was upon us. Some day in the future, scientists will isolate other factors that cause climate change, and in some way they'll be wrong too, but certainly not as wrong as those who claimed that our activity would create an ice age, or that our activity would create a runaway greenhouse.
Now here's a challenge to you - by what measure would you decide that someone was wrong on their central conceit, so that you could compare wrongness by some metric?
Evolution is falsifiable. Find a modern rabbit in the precambrian, and it's back to the drawing board. At that point, you either need to assert time travel exists, or that the rabbit fossil was placed there by aliens, or some other equivalent to god.
Even those rates are far from apocalyptic...moreover, the instability mentioned predates humanity's large CO2 emissions, so it represents *natural* sea level rise. It *asserts* that humanity shares the blame, without being able to quantify it, or provide a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis for their assertions.
Here's the irony - natural climate change will provide all kinds of changes, and nothing proposed by CO2-haters will stop it. So if there *is* an apocalypse coming, there's nothing we can do to stop it, and hitting the brakes on our world economy in an attempt to mollify the gods of global warming will only reduce our ability to adapt to the pending apocalypse.
Now I get it, the argument is "well, even if peeing in the reservoir is undetectable, we must do something symbolic to appease the masses" (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/17/portland-flush-38m-gallons-water-man-urinates-reservoir). I just find that argument unconvincing.
Spoken like a true apocalyptic believer.
I find it odd you use the word "status quo" though in reference to others, but not yourself. You seem to believe that right now, at this moment, we have the *perfect* sea level, and we should do all in our power to stop it from ever changing again. If anything, you've arbitrarily decided that the status quo must be preserved at all costs, despite the utter impossibility of stopping natural climate changes.
Why is that?
Because...global warming?
Assuming that sea level change is going to increase exponentially without end based on a tiny observational period is just as unjustified as assuming speed limits are going to increase exponentially without end based on a tiny observational period.
Look, we know sea levels change - they have before humanity, and they will long after humanity is gone. Automatically assuming that those changes are going to be catastrophic, and that our actions are to blame, is the impulse of the worst apocalyptic cults.
Not at all. In fact "it happens" (in terms of the globe warming over any given period of time), could very well be 100% natural, so the trick with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis is that you need to *exclude* the natural explanation (not simply wish it away).
Sadly, though Asimov was a great writer, he wasn't much of a scientist :) Arguably, he was a luddite, but I still love his prose.
The fact that such a grand hypothesis is infeasible is a clue that like the grand hypothesis of astrology, it isn't scientific :)
And the first step of science, its very cornerstone, that which it cannot do without, is falsifiability.
Without falsifiability, no amount of critical reasoning can work - the lack of falsifiability *precludes* the discovery of truth, because observations have no meaning - when *any* observation can be "explained" by a hypothesis, it ceases to be science.
Popper, again for your reference: http://www.stephenjaygould.org...
And exactly what observations would show that in fact, CO2 doesn't drive secondary factors, or that CO2 drivers are overwhelmed by natural variations?
Furthermore, logically explain how the *lack* of those observations leaves us *only* with human CO2 as the culprit.
You've already admitted the complexity and uncertainty of the climate system - the fact that you would believe such a simple formulation is contradictory to the points you've already conceded to.
I refer you to Feynman again - it isn't about *expectations*. The fact that CO2, and atmospheric emissions of radiation, and warming, and rates of warming, and ice melting could all *also* be due to natural variation means we haven't yet covered our foundational responsibility of the scientific method, falsifiability. Lots of things are "consistent with" or "expected" by astrology - that doesn't make it science.
No, my line of reasoning is this - we can't tell through observation whether or not our hypothesis is true or not (because *all* observations are "consistent with" our hypothesis), therefore, the hypothesis isn't scientific.
The tests don't have to be *easy* - they could be horribly complex, requiring all kinds of satellite technology, or radiocarbon dating, or intense data collection. However, the *must* exist.
You'll respond, "well, i've got lots of little tests!", but then make the clever, but unconvincing, claim that any little test that fails isn't enough to invalidate your central conceit. Much like an astrologist making 365 predictions in a year, and claiming that *all 365* must be wrong for his central conceit to be wrong.
Science is science, and it requires falsifiability, regardless of how difficult that bar is. Hunches, gu
So, what you're saying is AGW isn't a single hypothesis but a general model for weather and climate.
And, even though these models fail, we still believe in AGW :)
Any natural warming would also predict the ice caps would melt.
Your theory requires more than just refinement, it requires a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis :)
Certainly not at relativistic speeds, right? :)
The problem is the probability of their probability estimate :) With no necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis, they have no way to validate their estimates at all :)
Both are certainly true - pal review lets specious papers into the published record, keeps out contradictory ones, and whenever a pal reviewed paper is debunked, it's simply derided as "inconsequential" to the larger hypothesis.
My argument, which you've conceded to, is that there is no necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW. Once you've admitted that, how can you insist that AGW is scientific, without opening up the way for accepting astrology and other cargo cult science?
Aha! An admission at last!
Yes, an astrologist making the claim that Cancers get along with Leos may have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for their research, but of course, even if they're proven wrong, that doesn't prove astrology wrong, correct? :)
This is *exactly* not science. Asserting that AGW is supported by all these lesser hypotheses, and that it survives no matter how many of these lesser hypotheses are disproven, is the textbook definition of unfalsifiable :)
And just what part of that required that physicists maintain a consistent message? :)
No, I'm saying newtonian physics got proposed, was generally accepted, and then decades later everyone threw it away and accepted relativity :)
But surely you're not asserting that climate science is anywhere near as useful, reliable, or scientific as relativity, are you? :)
Very good point. Seems impossible to rule out natural climate change, doesn't it, given those uncertainties :)
That's cargo cult science :) Thousands of papers. All of them "consistent with". None of them "consequential" if they're disproven.
Take the ten million people who read their astrological chart today. Take the fundamental complexity of people. Say even a small fraction, just several thousand, had astrological charts that matched *perfectly* with reality.
Is this science? :)
Assuming that the rate of melt will increase at some exponential rate for the next 100 years really puts the ass in assume too :)
This is like worrying that increasing the speed limit from 55 to 65 means that eventually, the speed limit will be 10,000mph :)
2 inches will turn a storm surge 40 more miles inland?
Wow. Maybe we could fix that by laying down a *single* layer of sandbags :)
Of course your sources contradict me - they're preaching a religious mantra without a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, and they refuse to admit that observations don't match their predictions.
Fact: 1914 was colder that 2014.
Fact: By any measure of "catastrophe", 1914 was worse than 2014. We have larger population, a higher standard of living, better technology, better control over diseases, more food, and a host of other *great* advances for humanity.
Do you have *any* evidence that 1914 was in fact *better* for humanity, or even the *entire biosphere* than 2014?
If you can't prove that the world was a better place before human CO2 emissions were significant, why should we believe that the apocalypse is coming with some mild warming?
...so, let's do math .43mm/year = 4.43mm/decade
4.43mm/decaed = 44.3mm/century
44.3mm/century = 4.43cm/century
So, a little less than 2 inches in 100 years.
Is this supposed to worry us?
Now that's an ingenious defense of a failure to produce evidence :) "Oh, your honor, we don't have the murder weapon, but it's obvious since there was a murder, there was a weapon, so let's just not comment on it!" :)
I'm sure theists believe that God's existence is so obvious and innocuous that nobody should question it either :)
Really? It seems more obvious that contrary revolutionary positions is what has driven science forward :) Germs? What germs? Evolution? What evolution? Relativity? What relativity? :)
Here's the deal - where science has gone wrong has been when falsifiability has been compromised, and a "consistent message" has been the rule for the day, rather than the required skepticism of dogma that every scientist should practice :)
No, it's not valid because it is not *sufficient*. Yes, a warming earth is *necessary* for AGW to be true, but you cannot simply assert that observed warming is not *natural*. That's a horse of a different color.
It's not an impossible standard - there must be a set of observations excluded by the hypothesis, and a logical argument why the lack of those observations must lead *only* to the conclusion of the hypothesis. AGW has neither.
AGW is filled with nothing but special pleadings. A theory with nothing but special pleadings isn't science, it's cargo-cult science:
https://web.archive.org/web/20...
"There is one feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science. ... It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty — a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid — not only what you think is right about it; other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked — to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can — if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong — to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.
So it's common sense to hold onto a belief even if observations contradict it? :)
So if 96% of the world's theologians tell you gay marriage is a real threat, we should take that seriously? :)
Science is not consensus :)
CO2 is not totally destroying the environment :) Neither is a small increase in global average temperature - just take a look at say, population and crop yields from 2014 compared to 1914 when the world was cooler - how exactly do you measure harm during that interval if we've reduced disease, death and poverty in that interval?
You're simply practicing another version of an apocalyptic religion, dressed up in lab coats instead of priest collars :)
Blaming weather on CO2 emissions is like blaming droughts on gods of the harvest who are angry :)
You want to grow crops better? Thank the Haber process. Thank cheap energy.
You wrap yourself in this cloak of righteousness, like some zealot of the Catholic church in the 17th century, and expect us to simply take for granted that your *massive* promise of harm is outweighed by some completely imaginary set of catastrophes unobserved in the data.
Want to play science? Want to lose your religion? Start off with the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement - that's the first step of the scientific process. It doesn't start with a poll of experts, or a voice vote of consensus - it starts with *falsifiability*.
Be honest, did you read this article? http://www.stephenjaygould.org...
Your first cite shows someone changing their mind - it doesn't have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement :)
Heck, people convert to Christianity all the time, but that doesn't make Christianity science :)
The insulin hypothesis is backed up by observations - the fat-heart hypothesis is not. Taubes is just reporting the science, he's not making it.
The fact of the matter is that even if we are "correcting", it's taken us over 40 years - by that measure, we'll finally realize the error of AGW in about 20 more years :)
That's a political number, not a factual one.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
But I again remind you, consensus isn't science :)
That certainly may be *necessary* for AGW to be true, but it's clearly not *sufficient*. Heck, it doesn't even begin to touch on the origins of CO2, or the lack of any sort of relation between human CO2 emissions and measured CO2 levels (CO2 emissions vary widely both seasonally and yearly, but global CO2 levels have been monotonically increasing, as if governed by completely different drivers than simply human input).
Futhermore, the outgoing longwave radiation hypothesis is, in fact, subject to significant question:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
"We further examine the impact of cloud overlapping assumptions on the results of linear regression of spectral differences with respect to predefined spectral fingerprints. Cloud-relevant regression coefficients are affected more by different cloud overlapping assumptions than regression coefficients of other geophysical variables. These findings highlight the challenges in constructing realistic longwave spectral fingerprints and in detecting climate change using all-sky observations."
So there's a question as to whether or not anyone has constructed a "realistic longwave spectral fingerprint".
But here's the real problem - your SS cite throws a bunch of stuff at the wall, but does not actually specify falsification observations. And if you're honest, you'll admit that when there *are* observations of falsifications, the AGW trope is protected by ad hoc special pleadings asserting that they aren't "consequential" :) It's a very typical astrology trick :)
Find me a single "external scientist" who investigated the literature, and found a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW. Just one.
This happened once before with another corrupt scientist - Ancel Keys. His notorious "7 countries study" asserted a link between dietary fat intake and heart disease. As it turned out, his results were only caused by deleting data to "hide the decline" as it were. His ruthless pursuit of power led him to positions at the heart of government that led eventually to our dietary advice for lower-fat, and higher carbohydrate intake. He demanded that we act because the "science suggested" that there was a link between heart disease and dietary fat intake. In fact, he was wrong, and sent our country on an over 40 year path of increasing obesity, diabetes, cancer, heart disease and other chronic diseases.
Science does not suggest action - it leads us to truth. We have not been led to the truth by people pursing the AGW message.
*EXACTLY THIS*. We've proven there is no such thing as "scientific consensus" on AGW (nor is science driven by consensus). So *of course* we're going to indict them when they try to form a "consistent message" when the *FACTS* contradict that message!
Quote a *SINGLE* one. Find me a single AGW paper that says "if we observe this, that, or the other, AGW is false, and if we *fail* to observe this, that, or the other, we must logically conclude AGW is true".
Just for fun, you'll note that I made my hypotheses falsifiable - "there is no AGW paper with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW" is falsified by a *single* observation of an AGW paper with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW. Find just *one*, and I'll admit I'm wrong :) Of course, since this is a simple hypothesis, you can logically see how if you can't even find *one*, then it's very likely that my hypothesis is true - the logical case for AGW would of course have to be more complex in order to show that the lacking observations couldn't also happen with natural climate change.
One more thing to add - our thinking and thought processes are not simply neurons, it includes influence from many of the other non-neural cells of our body. The thought that we can simply model neurons, and have a human brain is silly - the rest of the organs and cells need to be simulated too because they have an impact on exactly how the neurons operate.
So if you want to really push out the math, figure out what you need to model just *one* cell, and multiply it by 37.2 trillion. Intelligence requires more than neurons.
Most AGW proponents are doing shoddy science at best, failing to do even basic things like version control data. Some of the best work is done by skeptic scientists, like Curry, or Lindzen - and it makes sense since they need to be completely above board before getting through the gauntlet of "pal-review" that gives a pass to anyone who plays to the party line.
Remember, the political charge on this came *first*, with the insistence that "we must act" and that "it's worse than we thought" - the fact that their predictions have contradicted observations has only caused them to circle the wagons more fervently, and that *increase* in political style messaging, rather than some well deserved humility that would be the proper response, is only exacerbating the issue.
If you want to show me someone doing good science here, find me *any* necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW from *any* paper at *any* time in history. Just one.
AGW represents science being subservient to politics, and the problem with politics is that you can never admit error (we've got a similar problem with fat and carbohydrates and the past 40 years of 'low-fat' advice from the government).