But the quote is: "The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate."
Note the 95% confidence level.
So, now that we've seen that, are you 95% sure that AGW is false?:) Or will you bitterly cling to that last 5%?:)
conceit |knst| noun 1 excessive pride in oneself: he was puffed up with conceit. 2 a fanciful expression in writing or speech; an elaborate metaphor: the idea of the wind's singing is a prime romantic conceit.
an artistic effect or device: the director's brilliant conceit was to film this tale in black and white.
a fanciful notion: he is alarmed by the widespread conceit that he spent most of the 1980s drunk.
ORIGIN late Middle English (in the sense ‘idea or notion,’ also ‘quaintly decorative article’): from conceive, on the pattern of pairs such as deceive, deceit .
It's meant as an accurate description of the central idea/notion. If you consider that it is fanciful as an insult, please consider it an insult.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, it's only dishonest to cherry pick start point, but not end point?:)
Really?:)
Look, NOAA 2008 specified a falsification criteria (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/15/noaas-15-year-statement-from-2008-puts-a-kibosh-on-the-current-met-office-insignificance-claims-that-global-warming-flatlined-for-16-years/) - when searching for an *instance* of that falsification, you just need to find it *once*.
Note, there are *plenty* of instances of statistically insignificant warming beyond 15 years.
Do you admit you've been falsified, or do you preserve your central conceit with the ad hoc special pleading that NOAA 2008 wasn't really important to your case?
You're playing a shell game where no matter how many models are falsified, your central conceit is preserved. Start off with dozens of models, "falsify" a few, and save the rest...like betting on every square on a roulette table.
What you need is a falsification criteria that would falsify your *central conceit*, not some specific, cherry picked instance of a model run.
Be honest, are there any combinations of CO2 and temperature change that would falsify your *central conceit*? If so, can you specify them?
No, the claim is that if people are going to die anyway, spending your life searching for the mythical fountain of youth is a waste of energy:)
Natural climate changes existed before humanity. Nature climate changes will exist throughout humanity's reign. Natural climate changes will exist long after humanity is gone. To believe that simply because we're here, that natural climate change has stopped, is silly.
1) CO2 rises, temp rises -> classic prediction of AGW 2) CO2 rises, temp stable -> ad hoc special pleading "hidden heat" in oceans, or "china aerosols" 3) CO2 rises, temp falls -> ad hoc special pleading "hidden heat" in oceans, or "china aerosols" 4) CO2 flat, temp rises -> "it's worse than we thought" or "CO2 effect lasts a long time" 5) CO2 flat, temp stable -> classic prediction of AGW 6) CO2 flat, temp falls -> ad hoc special pleading "hidden heat" in oceans, or "china aerosols" 7) CO2 falls, temp rises -> "it's worse than we thought" 8) CO2 falls, temp stable -> "it's worse than we thought" 9) CO2 falls, temp falls -> classic prediction of AGW
And none of that actually touches on the weasel word "catastrophic":)
So, literally, no combination of CO2 and temperature are beyond explanation. NOAA 2008 came closest to specifying a falsification criteria, (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/15/noaas-15-year-statement-from-2008-puts-a-kibosh-on-the-current-met-office-insignificance-claims-that-global-warming-flatlined-for-16-years/), but of course, nobody will actually hold to that failed prediction.
Here's another trick that gets played - peer reviewed papers come out on AGW all the time, that make *opposite* predictions. One claims "this spotted frog will lose habitat", and another claims "this spotted frog will expand habitat" -> when the habitat of this spotted frog changes (because lord knows, nothing stays the same for long), they pull out the paper that matched the prediction and claim "see, we were right!" This is like betting on every point on a roulette table, and claiming you're perfect at picking roulette winners:)
I'll add the following - there's no argument against Creationism because it is not a falsifiable hypothesis. There's similarly no argument against CAGW because it is not a falsifiable hypothesis.
Forget paychecks, or tampering with the proxy data, or tampering with the instrumental data, or political pressure - if you can't come up with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis, and specific observations which must a) not be observed, and b) when not observed logically lead to your hypothesis as the only viable conclusion, then you're not doing science.
It wouldn't matter if CO2 rose for 15 years with no statistically significant warming. It wouldn't matter if CO2 rose for 150 years with no statistically significant warming - both scenarios would be waved away with some ad hoc special pleading and the insistence that "we're doomed" unless we follow the strict prescriptions of behavior being demanded of us.
There is a large body of data and evidence for astrological predictions, in a vast number of published papers and books. That doesn't make it science:)
Quote me your necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement if you want to talk science, MM:)
If every scrap of humanity disappeared tomorrow, do you think you could keep the sea level constant for the rest of eternity? Do you think you could keep the temperature current for the rest of eternity? Do you think you could keep the ice levels current for the rest of eternity?
Do you deny that natural climate change exists, and every observation of change we've ever had post industrial age has had precedent in the pre industrial age?
More importantly, is there any combination of CO2 and temperature, over any particular time period, that would cause you to abandon your strong belief in CAGW?
You've shown a lot of patience for these folks, Karmashock:)
I find that the real problem, the most basic, underlying problem here, is that the global warming alarmists don't adhere to the standard definition of "science". With the advent of complex computer modeling, and very convincing exercises in curve fitting, they've forgotten the most primary components of the scientific method - falsifiability.
Now, I understand the critiques of Popper, and his work regarding the importance of falsifiability as a criterion for science vs. pseudo-science, but the simple fact of the matter is that the global warming alarmists believe that "science" means "peer(pal)-reviewed literature" and people looking authoritative in lab coats. Because they don't understand the necessity of falsifiability, they occupy the same debate space that creationists and intelligent designers occupy - they cannot be proven wrong. Every bit of contradictory data can be explained away with an ad hoc special pleading, leading to a defense as thorough as an omnipotent god who can create anything.
As a child, I had many engaging and exciting debates with friends who believed in God, about God's existence, or God's morality. I find that the response from global warming alarmists follow the exact same script of rationalizations that my theist friends had:)
Show me your necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW or CAGW, and we can talk science.
CAGW and AGW have more akin with creationism and intelligent design (both non-falsifiable hypotheses), than with evolution.
It is of the utmost irony that otherwise rational scientists have fallen victim to the pseudo-science of the anthropogenic global warming scam. They can't even adhere to the simplest and most basic principle of the scientific method - falsifiability.
Remember, government gets to use all the money it taxes out of big oil, the Koch brothers, and the rest of us, to drive billions upon billions of dollars into the hands of charlatan "scientists" who are willing to toe the political line clamored for by their government masters.
When you want to talk science, cite and quote some necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW or CAGW. Until then, government bureaucrats are getting whatever they can make us pay for out of "scientists".
Let's be honest - in 1997-1998, global warming alarmist nazis didn't treat it as an outlier - they screamed from the rooftops that the sky was falling and that it was worse than they thought.
The truth is, the alarmist nazis hate using 97-98 as a start point, but *love* it as an end point.
Wait, so you're saying that 10 nurture times 10 nature = 100 total, and therefore the result is 100% nurture *and* 100% nature? That somehow nurture and nature must be multiplied together before coming to a whole?:)
Really?:)
Look, you can make the argument that some specific gender differences are more driven by nature, and less driven by nature, and you even argue that they can vary over time, but you cannot assert that gender differences are 100% driven by nurture *and* 100% driven by nature. That's simply unicorn rainbow thinking.
And that's the trouble with believing that anyone can program - not everyone can apply analytical principles to problems.
Computers have extremely low failure rates if properly done
Actually, if you've ever done any actual electrical engineering at all, you'll understand that in fact, computer electronics don't have particularly low failure rates - they *do* have ingenious coping mechanisms though. Even something as basic as your average hard drive has all kinds of fancy pants stuff going on in the background to work around physical errors, to make it transparent to the user.
If, as you suggest, all we did was implement "Hello, World!" over and over again, yes, it would be like mechanical engineering, something that could be done in an assembly line factory. Add the complexity required by ambiguous business, and the real-world limitations of time and money, and you're in a whole different world again.
You were unable to comprehend that the statement "100% from both" was literally meant "100% from A *and* 100% from B", even after it was clarified to you. When pointed out, you dodged and marveled at your 'genius' by claiming that your real goal was to "cultivate the habit of thinking in others".
And now, when it's all laid out in the light of day, just how wrong your initial assumptions were, and how silly your follow up defenses were, you dodge again!:)
My point exactly. Math is the reality of programming, period, full stop. Alternate, cognitively dissonant "realities" of liberal arts majors who can't grok fractions don't count there.
You shouldn't be a programmer if you don't understand that the reality of programming is math, even as you say "programming is based on math":)
Keep digging all you like, this just gets more amusing as you go on:)
Just trying to cultivate a habit of thinking in you:)
So, are you really going to defend the statement that gender differences are 100% from nurture, *and* 100% from nature"? Obviously you misunderstood the initial sentence, and found some semantic ambiguity there, but is this clarification clearer for you?
Or is the clarification and ambiguity both 100%?:)
And you, jmc23, should never be a programmer if you believe math isn't reality:)
You are welcome to your own reality within the confines of your head, but when you code x=100, and y=100, I promise you that x+y==100 will register as false:)
There is a difference between understanding that something is difficult, and requires a level of commitment and even a particular mindset to do well, and elitism.
You may put your programming books for children in front of a million 6-12 year olds - that doesn't mean you'll have a million programmers at the end of the road.
Licenses are for factory work - programming is art. Auto repair and plumbing skill levels vary around a fairly small range - programming skills vary by orders of magnitude.
Of course we will continue to improve tooling as best we can to make things easier - but they will never be so easy as to require less of great programmers.
While there are quite a few amateur Mathematicians out there, almost all are incompetent and produce nothing of worth. This is pretty much the same in software, except that there are many trained programmers that never exceed that level of skill.
That's quite insightful - I never quite put that together explicitly in my mind, but that's awfully consistent with my experience with the varying levels of programmers. There are literally some programmers who cannot overcome issues even if given unlimited time, where as other programmers can overcome those issues in hours if not minutes.
That all being said, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want - part of the art of IT management is figuring out where and how you can use lower skilled folk where they can do the least damage. I would love to raise the bar and only hire genius level talent, but I'm not sure if there are any enterprises out there that could stomach such a bold reorganization of thought.
Slashdot Mirror
So, now that we've seen that, are you 95% sure that AGW is false? :) Or will you bitterly cling to that last 5%? :)
conceit |knst|
noun
1 excessive pride in oneself: he was puffed up with conceit.
2 a fanciful expression in writing or speech; an elaborate metaphor: the idea of the wind's singing is a prime romantic conceit.
an artistic effect or device: the director's brilliant conceit was to film this tale in black and white.
a fanciful notion: he is alarmed by the widespread conceit that he spent most of the 1980s drunk.
ORIGIN late Middle English (in the sense ‘idea or notion,’ also ‘quaintly decorative article’): from conceive, on the pattern of pairs such as deceive, deceit .
It's meant as an accurate description of the central idea/notion. If you consider that it is fanciful as an insult, please consider it an insult.
We have many historical records of temperature rising while CO2 levels went down in the ice cores.
Are you willing to accept that you've been falsified, or do you have an ad hoc special pleading to explain away those observations?
There are many instances in ice cores of CO2 going up, but temperature going down.
Are you now willing to admit you've been falsified? Or do you have an ad hoc special pleading for those historical moments?
Whoa, whoa, whoa, it's only dishonest to cherry pick start point, but not end point? :)
Really? :)
Look, NOAA 2008 specified a falsification criteria (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/15/noaas-15-year-statement-from-2008-puts-a-kibosh-on-the-current-met-office-insignificance-claims-that-global-warming-flatlined-for-16-years/) - when searching for an *instance* of that falsification, you just need to find it *once*.
http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p...
Note, there are *plenty* of instances of statistically insignificant warming beyond 15 years.
Do you admit you've been falsified, or do you preserve your central conceit with the ad hoc special pleading that NOAA 2008 wasn't really important to your case?
You're playing a shell game where no matter how many models are falsified, your central conceit is preserved. Start off with dozens of models, "falsify" a few, and save the rest...like betting on every square on a roulette table.
What you need is a falsification criteria that would falsify your *central conceit*, not some specific, cherry picked instance of a model run.
Be honest, are there any combinations of CO2 and temperature change that would falsify your *central conceit*? If so, can you specify them?
No, the claim is that if people are going to die anyway, spending your life searching for the mythical fountain of youth is a waste of energy :)
Natural climate changes existed before humanity. Nature climate changes will exist throughout humanity's reign. Natural climate changes will exist long after humanity is gone. To believe that simply because we're here, that natural climate change has stopped, is silly.
So, let's break down the options:
1) CO2 rises, temp rises -> classic prediction of AGW
2) CO2 rises, temp stable -> ad hoc special pleading "hidden heat" in oceans, or "china aerosols"
3) CO2 rises, temp falls -> ad hoc special pleading "hidden heat" in oceans, or "china aerosols"
4) CO2 flat, temp rises -> "it's worse than we thought" or "CO2 effect lasts a long time"
5) CO2 flat, temp stable -> classic prediction of AGW
6) CO2 flat, temp falls -> ad hoc special pleading "hidden heat" in oceans, or "china aerosols"
7) CO2 falls, temp rises -> "it's worse than we thought"
8) CO2 falls, temp stable -> "it's worse than we thought"
9) CO2 falls, temp falls -> classic prediction of AGW
And none of that actually touches on the weasel word "catastrophic" :)
So, literally, no combination of CO2 and temperature are beyond explanation. NOAA 2008 came closest to specifying a falsification criteria, (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/15/noaas-15-year-statement-from-2008-puts-a-kibosh-on-the-current-met-office-insignificance-claims-that-global-warming-flatlined-for-16-years/), but of course, nobody will actually hold to that failed prediction.
Here's another trick that gets played - peer reviewed papers come out on AGW all the time, that make *opposite* predictions. One claims "this spotted frog will lose habitat", and another claims "this spotted frog will expand habitat" -> when the habitat of this spotted frog changes (because lord knows, nothing stays the same for long), they pull out the paper that matched the prediction and claim "see, we were right!" This is like betting on every point on a roulette table, and claiming you're perfect at picking roulette winners :)
I'll add the following - there's no argument against Creationism because it is not a falsifiable hypothesis. There's similarly no argument against CAGW because it is not a falsifiable hypothesis.
Forget paychecks, or tampering with the proxy data, or tampering with the instrumental data, or political pressure - if you can't come up with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis, and specific observations which must a) not be observed, and b) when not observed logically lead to your hypothesis as the only viable conclusion, then you're not doing science.
It wouldn't matter if CO2 rose for 15 years with no statistically significant warming. It wouldn't matter if CO2 rose for 150 years with no statistically significant warming - both scenarios would be waved away with some ad hoc special pleading and the insistence that "we're doomed" unless we follow the strict prescriptions of behavior being demanded of us.
There is a large body of data and evidence for astrological predictions, in a vast number of published papers and books. That doesn't make it science :)
Quote me your necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement if you want to talk science, MM :)
If every scrap of humanity disappeared tomorrow, do you think you could keep the sea level constant for the rest of eternity? Do you think you could keep the temperature current for the rest of eternity? Do you think you could keep the ice levels current for the rest of eternity?
Do you deny that natural climate change exists, and every observation of change we've ever had post industrial age has had precedent in the pre industrial age?
More importantly, is there any combination of CO2 and temperature, over any particular time period, that would cause you to abandon your strong belief in CAGW?
You've shown a lot of patience for these folks, Karmashock :)
I find that the real problem, the most basic, underlying problem here, is that the global warming alarmists don't adhere to the standard definition of "science". With the advent of complex computer modeling, and very convincing exercises in curve fitting, they've forgotten the most primary components of the scientific method - falsifiability.
Now, I understand the critiques of Popper, and his work regarding the importance of falsifiability as a criterion for science vs. pseudo-science, but the simple fact of the matter is that the global warming alarmists believe that "science" means "peer(pal)-reviewed literature" and people looking authoritative in lab coats. Because they don't understand the necessity of falsifiability, they occupy the same debate space that creationists and intelligent designers occupy - they cannot be proven wrong. Every bit of contradictory data can be explained away with an ad hoc special pleading, leading to a defense as thorough as an omnipotent god who can create anything.
As a child, I had many engaging and exciting debates with friends who believed in God, about God's existence, or God's morality. I find that the response from global warming alarmists follow the exact same script of rationalizations that my theist friends had :)
Show me your necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW or CAGW, and we can talk science.
CAGW and AGW have more akin with creationism and intelligent design (both non-falsifiable hypotheses), than with evolution.
It is of the utmost irony that otherwise rational scientists have fallen victim to the pseudo-science of the anthropogenic global warming scam. They can't even adhere to the simplest and most basic principle of the scientific method - falsifiability.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
Remember, government gets to use all the money it taxes out of big oil, the Koch brothers, and the rest of us, to drive billions upon billions of dollars into the hands of charlatan "scientists" who are willing to toe the political line clamored for by their government masters.
When you want to talk science, cite and quote some necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW or CAGW. Until then, government bureaucrats are getting whatever they can make us pay for out of "scientists".
Let's be honest - in 1997-1998, global warming alarmist nazis didn't treat it as an outlier - they screamed from the rooftops that the sky was falling and that it was worse than they thought.
The truth is, the alarmist nazis hate using 97-98 as a start point, but *love* it as an end point.
Wait, so you're saying that 10 nurture times 10 nature = 100 total, and therefore the result is 100% nurture *and* 100% nature? That somehow nurture and nature must be multiplied together before coming to a whole? :)
Really? :)
Look, you can make the argument that some specific gender differences are more driven by nature, and less driven by nature, and you even argue that they can vary over time, but you cannot assert that gender differences are 100% driven by nurture *and* 100% driven by nature. That's simply unicorn rainbow thinking.
And that's the trouble with believing that anyone can program - not everyone can apply analytical principles to problems.
Are you again avoiding the clarification? When asked, they replied that when they said "100% from both" they meant 100% nurture *and* 100% nature.
Are you trying to defend that 100%+100% = 100%?
Really?
Actually, if you've ever done any actual electrical engineering at all, you'll understand that in fact, computer electronics don't have particularly low failure rates - they *do* have ingenious coping mechanisms though. Even something as basic as your average hard drive has all kinds of fancy pants stuff going on in the background to work around physical errors, to make it transparent to the user.
If, as you suggest, all we did was implement "Hello, World!" over and over again, yes, it would be like mechanical engineering, something that could be done in an assembly line factory. Add the complexity required by ambiguous business, and the real-world limitations of time and money, and you're in a whole different world again.
A bit of projection there, don't you think? :)
You were unable to comprehend that the statement "100% from both" was literally meant "100% from A *and* 100% from B", even after it was clarified to you. When pointed out, you dodged and marveled at your 'genius' by claiming that your real goal was to "cultivate the habit of thinking in others".
And now, when it's all laid out in the light of day, just how wrong your initial assumptions were, and how silly your follow up defenses were, you dodge again! :)
Brilliant!
My point exactly. Math is the reality of programming, period, full stop. Alternate, cognitively dissonant "realities" of liberal arts majors who can't grok fractions don't count there.
You shouldn't be a programmer if you don't understand that the reality of programming is math, even as you say "programming is based on math" :)
Keep digging all you like, this just gets more amusing as you go on :)
Just trying to cultivate a habit of thinking in you :)
So, are you really going to defend the statement that gender differences are 100% from nurture, *and* 100% from nature"? Obviously you misunderstood the initial sentence, and found some semantic ambiguity there, but is this clarification clearer for you?
Or is the clarification and ambiguity both 100%? :)
Ah, the petty intellectual elitism that believes that ambiguity is wisdom :)
You're not spoon feeding thoughts, dear boy, you're blowing irrational smoke and pretending it's insightful :)
And you, jmc23, should never be a programmer if you believe math isn't reality :)
You are welcome to your own reality within the confines of your head, but when you code x=100, and y=100, I promise you that x+y==100 will register as false :)
There is a difference between understanding that something is difficult, and requires a level of commitment and even a particular mindset to do well, and elitism.
You may put your programming books for children in front of a million 6-12 year olds - that doesn't mean you'll have a million programmers at the end of the road.
Licenses are for factory work - programming is art. Auto repair and plumbing skill levels vary around a fairly small range - programming skills vary by orders of magnitude.
Of course we will continue to improve tooling as best we can to make things easier - but they will never be so easy as to require less of great programmers.
That's quite insightful - I never quite put that together explicitly in my mind, but that's awfully consistent with my experience with the varying levels of programmers. There are literally some programmers who cannot overcome issues even if given unlimited time, where as other programmers can overcome those issues in hours if not minutes.
That all being said, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want - part of the art of IT management is figuring out where and how you can use lower skilled folk where they can do the least damage. I would love to raise the bar and only hire genius level talent, but I'm not sure if there are any enterprises out there that could stomach such a bold reorganization of thought.