Business can only tolerate simplification if they're willing to simplify the way they do business.
Unfortunately, that world simply doesn't exist. Business provides hard, difficult problems, with hidden internal inconsistencies that can only be sussed out through artful analysis.
I'm assuming that the errors in the parent post here are actually trying to be clever and prove the point that human intelligence can almost instantaneously gloss over a bunch of errors that a computer would barf on in a second. If so, bravo, that was an interesting way to sell a point.
If not, you need to double check your posts before you hit the "submit" button:)
Not sure if you've ever done any sort of enterprise development, but this is often the craziest part of the art of programming.
Decide A. Code A.
Decision changes to A'. Make minor changes to code A'.
Decision changes to B. Tack on major kludge to code B from A'.
Decision changes to B+A'. Major analysis to figure out if there is in fact, a valid combination of B+A' - discovery that B+A' has multiple internal contradictions. Ask business for answers to contradictions C, D, E and F.
Decision becomes B+A', C, D, !E, !F. Now you find that C and !F are also mutually exclusive.
So on, and so on, and so on.
With perfect requirements, programming can be trivial. In the real world, it's all about trial, and trial, and trial, and trial, and then usually just accepting an unhappy compromise somewhere along the way.
Mod parent up. Programming isn't like factory work, it's like cooperative poetry writing. It's an *art*, constrained by science, but nonetheless *artful*.
Anyone who has delved any depth into mathematics, and seen various proofs where suddenly, you multiply both sides by some crazy inconceivable factor and then the whole solution becomes trivial, realizes that there is, in fact, inspiration and art even in the driest of deterministic mathematics. Same with computer programming.
If they can't think "50+50=100", but rather, are so clever as to fool themselves into thinking "100+100=100", fine, they're not stupid, they're simply wrong and unable to program properly.
As mentioned, cognitive dissonance is fine in the human brain, but it's not conducive to problem solving in the real world.
No, they were quite clear that it wasn't 50% from one, and 50% from the other, or any other combination that would add up to 100% - the answer was "100% from both", as in "100% from nurture, *and* 100% from nature".
Their meta-claim was that you're not allowed to ask the question "what percent from this, and what percent from that", even though their general underlying assumption was that gender differences were primarily socially driven, rather than biologically driven. The could discern between the two sources, and even demand that the consideration of biological brain differences between genders was off-limits, but could not perform the simple task of adding parts to make a whole.
Put someone into programming when they refuse to acknowledge mathematical axioms because of their ideology, and they'll fail every time.
So, talking to a pair of liberal arts professors about nature versus nurture in gender differences, I finally got to the question:
"What percent do you believe is from nurture, and what percent do you believe is from nature?"
The answer?
"100% from both."
When someone has a mindset that can't grok the idea of fractions of a whole, there's no reason why we should expect that they can construct even the most basic computer program. This is like the manager who wants to maximize on quality, minimize on resources, and minimize on time, all simultaneously. You can have cognitive dissonance in your brain all you like, but the real world isn't as forgiving.
The post essentially points in the direction of the various failed 4GL attempts of yore. Programming in complex symbolism to make things "easy" is essentially giving visual basic to someone without the knowledge enough to avoid O(n^2) algorithms.
Programming isn't hard because we made it so, it's hard because it is *intrinsically* hard. No amount of training wheels is going to make complex programming significantly easier.
So a few problems - for sure you can always come up with a "confounding factor" - that's called an ad hoc special pleading.
Secondly, we've already observed, historically, negative temperature on 30 year running mean with increasing CO2 - ice cores show us that.
But to be honest, you should be able to admit that there are "predictions" that purport to be in support of CAGW, that in fact predict the *opposite* outcomes. And if you're even more honest, you'll understand that "heads I win, tails you lose" isn't really science.
Really, riverat, would you enjoy "climate science nazi" as an appellation?
As for falsification of models, surely you agree that if *one* of the models is correct, the others have been falsified, right?:) Or is the assertion that truth comes from averaging things together that have *completely* different bases for their calculations?:)
Igw is right - none of the models predicted "the pause". Whether or not you consider that prediction miss a "falsification" depends on whether or not you believe that CAGW is a falsifiable hypothesis. Frankly, nobody on the planet has ever been able to state a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for CAGW, and it's likely an impossible task.
I mean, can we at least admit that the "climate science nazis" have put forth papers which purport to support AGW, but make opposing predictions to each other?
HS, I've actually answered all of your questions already
Now, that's quite a Gish Gallop!
I know, even though you haven't actually answered the questions *directly*, or *well*, as per Duane Gish and other creationists' logic, you've *answered* back at me, even though your answers made no reference to the actual questions given:)
"She also criticized Gish for failing to answer objections raised by his opponents.[12]"
You've made a point (A). I've raised objections. I've given you a range of legitimate and defensible responses to those objections that were more than sympathetic to your point of view. You've chosen instead to Gishy Gish, and instead of actually answering *questions*, you've simply asserted those answers exist...somewhere...out there...:)
We'll call this the "microbox mambo" in honor of you:) The agile ability to dodge answering any directly line of questioning in order to preserve the illusion of correctness:)
The funny thing, is you *get* what a Gish Gallop is. You understand how Duane Gish was a git, and somehow, you've imbued the worst part of his rhetoric directly into your thinking about AGW. You can fully grok exactly how wrong Duane Gish was when he refused to answer objections directly, and instead bounced through his list...your innovation is that you haven't even *provided* the list, but just refuse, time and time again, to actually *answer* a question.
The count is forty-six now for the low climate sensitivity answers, and it now stands at nineteen for the "constellation" question.
Can we agree that your contention is that there are no contradictory predictions in the name of AGW/CAGW in the peer reviewed literature, and that you furthermore contend there exist thus far unspecified good tests to discriminate AGW from natural variation?
Here, I'll channel you psychically and give your answer for you:
microbox: "Of course there are contradictory predictions in the name of AGW/CAGW in the peer reviewed literature. Although obviously this is like 'heads I win, tails you lose', I believe that someone, given enough time, could collect, *beforehand*, all of the *good* peer reviewed literature in defense of AGW/CAGW. And to answer your next question, no, I'm not going to do it for you, and yes, I do take this as a matter of faith, just as I take it as a matter of faith that there do exist unspecified good tests to discriminate AGW from natural variation. It's not my job to be an expert, it's my job to believe in experts, and I've chosen to believe them. Yes, this is an argument from unspecified authorities, but just because it's a logical fallacy doesn't mean I'm wrong. It bothers me that you point out my hypocrisy with the scientific method, but not so much as to make me give up my belief system."
Actually, I said it was a test, but not a "good test". Go back and read it.
If you're asserting it's not a "good test", then what does it matter? You found a test AGW failed. Can you find tests it *hasn't* failed?:)
Also, I said 20 years does not a decadal trend make.
No, to quote you *exactly*, you said, "Less than two decades doesn't make a trend."
Two decades (20 years), last time I checked, is *not* less than 2 decades. Perhaps you count years differently?:) Or perhaps you weren't done defining "a trend"? Like Duane Gish, you left yourself some wiggle room - the statement "less than two decades doesn't make a trend" is logically compatible with "less than 31 years doesn't make a trend".
So, in your definition, does a decadal trend take 21 years? 22 years? 30 years? 100 years? Care to be precise at all, or will you continue to Gish Gallop away from actually *defending your argument*?:)
Also, I said we'd swing back to the last 20 years... and do the regression ourselves together.
So, are you now insisting that I can't just find *any* 20 year, statistically insignificant warming trend within the industrial age, but it has to be specifically cherry picked to the *last* 20 years?
Are you going to argue that the dataset isn't proper? Is that the ad hoc special pleading you have left?:)
Here, from MSU.RSS, the last 20 years, minus 3 months (perhaps you'd be so generous as to grant me three months of reprieve from your cherry pick). : Temperature Anomaly trend Feb 1993 to Dec 2013 Rate: 0.859C/Century; CI from -0.105 to 1.823; t-statistic 1.747; Temp range 0.110C to 0.289C
Statistically insignificant warming trend.
Look, if you want to argue your point (A) further, you've got to make a stand and argue with the data, or limit your specification of what AGW *precludes* with more ad hoc special pleadings. Do yourself a favor, and instead of gish galloping away, just pick one of the data sets that hasn't reached 20 years of statistically insignificant warming, and insist that *that* is your gold standard. At least then we can agree that you've come up with a test that hasn't been falsified yet - and we can come back to why we should cherry pick a dataset for your test after you've gone through more points:)
"She also criticized Gish for failing to answer objections raised by his opponents.[12]"
I've given you my objection, and I've given you at least *one* fairly defensible way out (pick your preferred dataset, and be prepared to defend it against the ones you don't like). You can either continue dodging specificity, or you can stake your (A) claim on a specific dataset, and move onto B. I've given you the data for trends, so go ahead, pick the one you think is the most favorable to your cause.
The count is forty-five now for the low climate sensitivity answers, and it now stands at eighteen for the "constellation" question.
Can we agree that your contention is that there are no contradictory predictions in the name of AGW/CAGW in the peer reviewed literature, and that you furthermore contend there exist thus far unspecified good tests to discriminate AGW from natural variation?
We already have observations showing no statistically significant trend for 20+ years in some temperature data sets.
Your response:
Now, you could respond in any number of ways:
1) don't like the data set I've chosen 2) didn't really mean 20 years, really meant 30 years 3) didn't really mean "preclude" 4) don't care about statistical significance, just care about the trend regardless of error bars 5) didn't really mean (A), let's move on to (B)
Instead, what do we get? "Do you have any oblique awareness that you are batshit insane?" Classy, real classy:)
I know it hurts that you've used "gish gallop" as an insult, and find yourself tarred by that brush. I'm sure you didn't intend to fit the shoes of Duane Gish when you decided to use that phrase as an insult. But you did. You've bragged about how many reasons you had, and then stumbled on the very first one out of the gate - and still, post after post after post, you've got no actual reply to the criticism of your argument.
The kind of behavior you're exhibiting is why I tend to lump AGW proponents with creationists - they behave in the same way.
The count is forty-three now for the low climate sensitivity answers, and it now stands at sixteen for the "constellation" question.
Can we agree that your contention is that there are no contradictory predictions in the name of AGW/CAGW in the peer reviewed literature, and that you furthermore contend there exist thus far unspecified good tests to discriminate AGW from natural variation?
" Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, dubbed this approach the "Gish Gallop," describing it as "where the creationist is allowed to run on for 45 minutes or an hour, spewing forth torrents of error that the evolutionist hasn't a prayer of refuting in the format of a debate."[11] She also criticized Gish for failing to answer objections raised by his opponents.[12]"
Like Gish, you're not only galloping, but you continue to fail to answer the objections raised:)
The shoe fits, and you're wearing four of them:)
Do you not know what a decadal trend is?
You stated, "Less than two decades doesn't make a trend." - so, by your definition, at least 20 years is required.
Click on "trend+significance" to see the statistically insignificant areas greyed out.
Click on MSU.RSS
Note the greyed out triangular area beneath the 19 year diagonal line to the lower right of the triangle graph. You'll note there are more than 1.7 points in that data set:)
Now, do you want to have an ad hoc special pleading against specific data sets? Are you unwilling to concede your previously stated "good test" because you doubt the data?
The count is forty-two now for the low climate sensitivity answers, and it now stands at fifteen for the "constellation" question. Your Gish Gallop is reaching epic proportions:)
Can we agree that your contention is that there are no contradictory predictions in the name of AGW/CAGW in the peer reviewed literature, and that you furthermore contend there exist thus far unspecified good tests to discriminate AGW from natural variation?
Are you aware of the difference between declaring there are a lot of aguments, and dumping a lot of arguments all at once?
Yes. Are you aware that the first is simply the second, minus the actual work?:)
You've done a phantom gish gallop, as it were, taking the worst part of the gish gallop, and adding appeal to unnamed authorities on top:)
Not in the slightest... because 1.7 data points doesn't make a trend.
What does that mean? You came up with what you thought was a "good test" for AGW. It failed. AGW is now falsified by your definition. Q.E.D. This isn't about data points, this is about *your good test*.
Look, if you want to have a do-over, fine. Let's simply restate A as "AGW does *not* preclude...", and you can move onto whatever "B" you want to:)
The count is forty-one now for the low climate sensitivity answers, and it now stands at fourteen for the "constellation" question.
Can we agree that your contention is that there are no contradictory predictions in the name of AGW/CAGW in the peer reviewed literature, and that you furthermore contend there exist thus far unspecified good tests to discriminate AGW from natural variation?
HS, with the gish gallop, arguments are dropped all at once, without giving a person a chance to respond in a reasonable manner.
Well, you went ahead and "proudly boast[ed] the number of reasons involved", instead of actually focusing on the fact that your first reason was self defeating:)
that Popper was talking about finding good tests
And your very first one you cited falsified AGW, a marvelous achievement I wish I could take credit for:)
Or are you saying you were trying to give me a list of *bad* tests for AGW?:)
Look, it's okay, I get why you're not actually answering the questions put to you - you've already argued yourself into a corner, and you're hoping that by ignoring your prima facie hypocrisy, that it'll just go away. Being ashamed is understandable - even your best way out is an admission of error, since your options are to redefine the word "preclude", or admit that your first proposed "good test" was in fact a bad one.
Here, you might like this tool when it comes to seeing how long we've gone with statistically insignificant warming:
Click on "trend+significance" - you'll note that for some datasets, we've already gone well past 20 years (decadal, in your terminology).
The count is forty now for the low climate sensitivity answers, and it now stands at thirteen for the "constellation" question.
Can we agree that your contention is that there are no contradictory predictions in the name of AGW/CAGW in the peer reviewed literature, and that you furthermore contend there exist thus far unspecified good tests to discriminate AGW from natural variation?
"In written form, a Gish Gallop is most commonly observed as a long list of supposed facts or reasons, as a pamphlet or green ink web page, with a title that proudly boasts the number of reasons involved. The individual points must also be fairly terse, so that each point individually can be easy to refute because it simply proves nothing."
Your words:
"There about a few dozen things to cover in order to describe the tests for AGW."
You've boasted about a "few dozen things", and failed to even get your first one right:)
(A) is a decadal trend. Less than two decades doesn't make a trend.
If you want to move the bar to 20 years, fine - we've certainly observed rising CO2 and 20 years of statistically insignificant warming in some modern temperature records, and in the long term proxy records as well.
"For UAH: Since November 1995: CI from -0.001 to 2.501 For RSS: Since December 1992: CI from -0.005 to 1.968 For Hadcrut4: Since August 1996: CI from -0.006 to 1.358 For Hadsst3: Since May 1993: CI from -0.002 to 1.768 For GISS: Since August 1997: CI from -0.030 to 1.326"
Your need to move the goalposts here is *classic* ad hoc special pleading, and if you're honest with yourself, you'll admit that you'd be arguing that 25 years isn't enough once we hit that in the modern instrumental record.
Put simply, you have not established one whit of credibility here with your "precludes" statement - you've made an empty statement, since your preclusion, be it 20 years, or even 100 years, has been observed in the historical record, and your response to that is invariably an ad hoc special pleading.
Put another way, there is no "A" - properly and honestly stated, the only thing you can defend is this:
A) AGW does not preclude the absence of a warming trend - it is possible for it to be true no matter what temperature trend is observed over any period of time.
Unfortunately, since you haven't started forbidding observations, you haven't even begun the process of Popper's falsifiability:)
The count is thirty-nine now for the low climate sensitivity answers, and it now stands at twelve for the "constellation" question.
Can we agree that your contention is that there are no contradictory predictions in the name of AGW/CAGW in the peer reviewed literature, and that you furthermore contend there exist thus far unspecified good tests to discriminate AGW from natural variation?
Not straying off topic at all - just stopping you from your gish gallop away from your statement of a falsification criteria for AGW that has already been observed, therefore falsifying AGW.
You described a test, and that test has been failed.
Do you *retract* your statement that "AGW precludes the absence of a warming trend"?
Or did you have a different definition of "preclude"?
preclude |priklood| verb [ with obj. ] prevent from happening; make impossible
The count is thirty-eight now for the low climate sensitivity answers, and it now stands at eleven for the "constellation" question.
Can we agree that your contention is that there are no contradictory predictions in the name of AGW/CAGW in the peer reviewed literature, and that you furthermore contend there exist thus far unspecified good tests to discriminate AGW from natural variation?
Okay, so you proposed a falsification criteria, you've admitted that it was observed. Do you now admit that AGW is falsified?
Okay, so there is some warming
Follow along - there is also some lack of warming during a period of rising CO2. If (A) mattered at all to the truth or falsity of AGW, then this singular observation would be enough to falsify it.
How do you defend AGW in the face of the fact that it *precludes* something that we have observed? *Your* words:
"AGW precludes the absence of a warming trend"
We've observed the absence of a warming trend. Q.E.D.
Or did you have a different definition of "preclude"?
preclude |priklood| verb [ with obj. ] prevent from happening; make impossible
The count is thirty-seven now for the low climate sensitivity answers, and it now stands at ten for the "constellation" question.
Can we agree that your contention is that there are no contradictory predictions in the name of AGW/CAGW in the peer reviewed literature, and that you furthermore contend there exist thus far unspecified good tests to discriminate AGW from natural variation?
Are we ready to assert AGW has been falsified now? Or do we come up with an ad hoc special pleading to protect the central conceit? From Popper:
"A clear appreciation of what may be gained (and lost) by con- ventionalist methods was expressed, a hundred years before Poincaré, by Black who wrote: ‘A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any hypothesis agree with the phenomena. This will please the imagination but does not advance our knowledge.’1"
Do you agree that the world has seen warming at a decadal time-scale?
Do you agree that the world has seen an absence of warming at a decadal time-scale while CO2 has continued to increase?
The count is thirty-six now for the low climate sensitivity answers, and it now stands at nine for the "constellation" question.
Can we agree that your contention is that there are no contradictory predictions in the name of AGW/CAGW in the peer reviewed literature, and that you furthermore contend there exist thus far unspecified good tests to discriminate AGW from natural variation?
Yes. I'm open to the idea that good tests may exist for AGW, but none cited thus far by you, or anyone else I've seen have reached that level. Like any good scientist, I'm open to the refutation of my own hypothesis - all someone has to do is cite a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement to refute my hypothesis that posits the lack thereof:)
The count is thirty-five now for the low climate sensitivity answers, and it now stands at eight for the "constellation" question.
Can we agree that your contention is that there are no contradictory predictions in the name of AGW/CAGW in the peer reviewed literature, and that you furthermore contend there exist thus far unspecified good tests to discriminate AGW from natural variation?
I'm saying that so far, nobody has enumerated a set of good tests for AGW that would discriminate AGW from natural variation. In some ways, this is simply a feature of our ignorance, since any of these observations can be "explained":
1) CO2 up, temp up - "classic" AGW 2) CO2 up, temp flat - "hidden heat" ad hoc special pleading to preserve AGW 3) CO2 up, temp down - "hidden heat" ad hoc special pleading to preserve AGW 4) CO2 flat, temp up - "lingering effects" AGW 5) CO2 flat, temp flat - "classic" AGW 6) CO2 flat, temp down - "hidden heat" ad hoc special pleading to preserve AGW 7) CO2 down, temp up - "it's worse than we thought" AGW 8) CO2 down, temp flat - "hidden heat" ad hoc special pleading to preserve AGW 9) CO2 down, temp down - "classic" AGW
When you think about it, every combination is possible with natural variation - we've observed every single one of those cases in the historical record. Without precise knowledge about all natural variations, we're quite stuck. Such systems aren't completely impossible to analyze (note the accuracy of tide predictions simply through fourier transforms), but often our analysis is not one that is something that can discriminate individual causes even as it is incredibly accurate and predictive. http://www.co-ops.nos.noaa.gov...
The count is thirty-four now for the low climate sensitivity answers, and it now stands at seven for the "constellation" question.
Can we agree that your contention is that there are no contradictory predictions in the name of AGW/CAGW in the peer reviewed literature, and that you furthermore contend there exist thus far unspecified good tests to discriminate AGW from natural variation?
I'll be a bit more gentle - I'm maintaining that you have not shown a set of good tests for #1. They could exist, but thus far, nobody, including yourself, or anyone you've ever quoted, or anyone anyone has ever quoted, has shown a set of good tests for #1.
You've cited some that are obviously not "good tests" in the Popperian sense (being necessary, but not logically sufficient to discriminate your hypothesis from others), and have hinted that you might in fact have a "good test" with low climate sensitivity, but you haven't put a specific number on it, nor made any sort of logical defense that it should be set at an arbitrary position.
The count is thirty-three now for the low climate sensitivity answers, and it now stands at six for the "constellation" question:
Do you admit that there are peer reviewed papers, supporting the idea of AGW/CAGW, that predict the *opposite* of each other, so that when either observation is made, instead of AGW/CAGW being falsified, we simply assert that the falsified prediction was not in fact necessary to AGW/CAGW?
Maybe I could put the "constellation" question another way:
Are you maintaining that there are no contradictory predictions in the name of AGW/CAGW in the peer reviewed literature?
But I'm not talking about good tests yet. One thing at a time.
Six of one, half dozen of another - no good tests, not falsifiable.
So, before we get to good tests, can we agree what the theory is.
Sure, I think you got that already, but let me restate just in case:
1) AGW - the hypothesis that human activity, specifically CO2 emissions, are the cause of measurable increase in the global average temperature beyond natural variation.
2) CAGW - the hypothesis that human activity, specifically CO2 emissions, are the cause of measurable increase in the global average temperature beyond natural variation that will cause more harm than benefit. Typically asserted as *significantly* more harm than benefit.
Neither of those should be controversial to you - and neither of those are stated with any sort of falsification criteria, and so cannot be considered containing necessary and sufficient falsification criteria.
As for a gish gallop, the low sensitivity and "constellation" questions are fairly straightforward.
The count is thirty-two now for the low climate sensitivity answers, and it now stands at five for the "constellation" question:
Do you admit that there are peer reviewed papers, supporting the idea of AGW/CAGW, that predict the *opposite* of each other, so that when either observation is made, instead of AGW/CAGW being falsified, we simply assert that the falsified prediction was not in fact necessary to AGW/CAGW?
Slashdot Mirror
Business can only tolerate simplification if they're willing to simplify the way they do business.
Unfortunately, that world simply doesn't exist. Business provides hard, difficult problems, with hidden internal inconsistencies that can only be sussed out through artful analysis.
I'm assuming that the errors in the parent post here are actually trying to be clever and prove the point that human intelligence can almost instantaneously gloss over a bunch of errors that a computer would barf on in a second. If so, bravo, that was an interesting way to sell a point.
If not, you need to double check your posts before you hit the "submit" button :)
Not sure if you've ever done any sort of enterprise development, but this is often the craziest part of the art of programming.
Decide A. Code A.
Decision changes to A'. Make minor changes to code A'.
Decision changes to B. Tack on major kludge to code B from A'.
Decision changes to B+A'. Major analysis to figure out if there is in fact, a valid combination of B+A' - discovery that B+A' has multiple internal contradictions. Ask business for answers to contradictions C, D, E and F.
Decision becomes B+A', C, D, !E, !F. Now you find that C and !F are also mutually exclusive.
So on, and so on, and so on.
With perfect requirements, programming can be trivial. In the real world, it's all about trial, and trial, and trial, and trial, and then usually just accepting an unhappy compromise somewhere along the way.
Mod parent up. Programming isn't like factory work, it's like cooperative poetry writing. It's an *art*, constrained by science, but nonetheless *artful*.
Anyone who has delved any depth into mathematics, and seen various proofs where suddenly, you multiply both sides by some crazy inconceivable factor and then the whole solution becomes trivial, realizes that there is, in fact, inspiration and art even in the driest of deterministic mathematics. Same with computer programming.
If they can't think "50+50=100", but rather, are so clever as to fool themselves into thinking "100+100=100", fine, they're not stupid, they're simply wrong and unable to program properly.
As mentioned, cognitive dissonance is fine in the human brain, but it's not conducive to problem solving in the real world.
No, they were quite clear that it wasn't 50% from one, and 50% from the other, or any other combination that would add up to 100% - the answer was "100% from both", as in "100% from nurture, *and* 100% from nature".
Their meta-claim was that you're not allowed to ask the question "what percent from this, and what percent from that", even though their general underlying assumption was that gender differences were primarily socially driven, rather than biologically driven. The could discern between the two sources, and even demand that the consideration of biological brain differences between genders was off-limits, but could not perform the simple task of adding parts to make a whole.
Put someone into programming when they refuse to acknowledge mathematical axioms because of their ideology, and they'll fail every time.
This.
So, talking to a pair of liberal arts professors about nature versus nurture in gender differences, I finally got to the question:
"What percent do you believe is from nurture, and what percent do you believe is from nature?"
The answer?
"100% from both."
When someone has a mindset that can't grok the idea of fractions of a whole, there's no reason why we should expect that they can construct even the most basic computer program. This is like the manager who wants to maximize on quality, minimize on resources, and minimize on time, all simultaneously. You can have cognitive dissonance in your brain all you like, but the real world isn't as forgiving.
My experience is that programmers are over 90+% *libertarian*.
A pox on social conservatives and fiscal liberals both.
...wear a fucking helmet.
The post essentially points in the direction of the various failed 4GL attempts of yore. Programming in complex symbolism to make things "easy" is essentially giving visual basic to someone without the knowledge enough to avoid O(n^2) algorithms.
Programming isn't hard because we made it so, it's hard because it is *intrinsically* hard. No amount of training wheels is going to make complex programming significantly easier.
So a few problems - for sure you can always come up with a "confounding factor" - that's called an ad hoc special pleading.
Secondly, we've already observed, historically, negative temperature on 30 year running mean with increasing CO2 - ice cores show us that.
But to be honest, you should be able to admit that there are "predictions" that purport to be in support of CAGW, that in fact predict the *opposite* outcomes. And if you're even more honest, you'll understand that "heads I win, tails you lose" isn't really science.
"climate science denier"?
Really, riverat, would you enjoy "climate science nazi" as an appellation?
As for falsification of models, surely you agree that if *one* of the models is correct, the others have been falsified, right? :) Or is the assertion that truth comes from averaging things together that have *completely* different bases for their calculations? :)
Igw is right - none of the models predicted "the pause". Whether or not you consider that prediction miss a "falsification" depends on whether or not you believe that CAGW is a falsifiable hypothesis. Frankly, nobody on the planet has ever been able to state a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for CAGW, and it's likely an impossible task.
I mean, can we at least admit that the "climate science nazis" have put forth papers which purport to support AGW, but make opposing predictions to each other?
Now, that's quite a Gish Gallop!
I know, even though you haven't actually answered the questions *directly*, or *well*, as per Duane Gish and other creationists' logic, you've *answered* back at me, even though your answers made no reference to the actual questions given :)
"She also criticized Gish for failing to answer objections raised by his opponents.[12]"
You've made a point (A). I've raised objections. I've given you a range of legitimate and defensible responses to those objections that were more than sympathetic to your point of view. You've chosen instead to Gishy Gish, and instead of actually answering *questions*, you've simply asserted those answers exist...somewhere...out there... :)
We'll call this the "microbox mambo" in honor of you :) The agile ability to dodge answering any directly line of questioning in order to preserve the illusion of correctness :)
The funny thing, is you *get* what a Gish Gallop is. You understand how Duane Gish was a git, and somehow, you've imbued the worst part of his rhetoric directly into your thinking about AGW. You can fully grok exactly how wrong Duane Gish was when he refused to answer objections directly, and instead bounced through his list...your innovation is that you haven't even *provided* the list, but just refuse, time and time again, to actually *answer* a question.
The count is forty-six now for the low climate sensitivity answers, and it now stands at nineteen for the "constellation" question.
Can we agree that your contention is that there are no contradictory predictions in the name of AGW/CAGW in the peer reviewed literature, and that you furthermore contend there exist thus far unspecified good tests to discriminate AGW from natural variation?
Here, I'll channel you psychically and give your answer for you:
microbox: "Of course there are contradictory predictions in the name of AGW/CAGW in the peer reviewed literature. Although obviously this is like 'heads I win, tails you lose', I believe that someone, given enough time, could collect, *beforehand*, all of the *good* peer reviewed literature in defense of AGW/CAGW. And to answer your next question, no, I'm not going to do it for you, and yes, I do take this as a matter of faith, just as I take it as a matter of faith that there do exist unspecified good tests to discriminate AGW from natural variation. It's not my job to be an expert, it's my job to believe in experts, and I've chosen to believe them. Yes, this is an argument from unspecified authorities, but just because it's a logical fallacy doesn't mean I'm wrong. It bothers me that you point out my hypocrisy with the scientific method, but not so much as to make me give up my belief system."
There, now was that so hard? :)
If you're asserting it's not a "good test", then what does it matter? You found a test AGW failed. Can you find tests it *hasn't* failed? :)
No, to quote you *exactly*, you said, "Less than two decades doesn't make a trend."
Two decades (20 years), last time I checked, is *not* less than 2 decades. Perhaps you count years differently? :) Or perhaps you weren't done defining "a trend"? Like Duane Gish, you left yourself some wiggle room - the statement "less than two decades doesn't make a trend" is logically compatible with "less than 31 years doesn't make a trend".
So, in your definition, does a decadal trend take 21 years? 22 years? 30 years? 100 years? Care to be precise at all, or will you continue to Gish Gallop away from actually *defending your argument*? :)
So, are you now insisting that I can't just find *any* 20 year, statistically insignificant warming trend within the industrial age, but it has to be specifically cherry picked to the *last* 20 years?
Look, I showed you the data: http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p...
Are you going to argue that the dataset isn't proper? Is that the ad hoc special pleading you have left? :)
Here, from MSU.RSS, the last 20 years, minus 3 months (perhaps you'd be so generous as to grant me three months of reprieve from your cherry pick). :
Temperature Anomaly trend
Feb 1993 to Dec 2013
Rate: 0.859C/Century;
CI from -0.105 to 1.823;
t-statistic 1.747;
Temp range 0.110C to 0.289C
Statistically insignificant warming trend.
Look, if you want to argue your point (A) further, you've got to make a stand and argue with the data, or limit your specification of what AGW *precludes* with more ad hoc special pleadings. Do yourself a favor, and instead of gish galloping away, just pick one of the data sets that hasn't reached 20 years of statistically insignificant warming, and insist that *that* is your gold standard. At least then we can agree that you've come up with a test that hasn't been falsified yet - and we can come back to why we should cherry pick a dataset for your test after you've gone through more points :)
"She also criticized Gish for failing to answer objections raised by his opponents.[12]"
I've given you my objection, and I've given you at least *one* fairly defensible way out (pick your preferred dataset, and be prepared to defend it against the ones you don't like). You can either continue dodging specificity, or you can stake your (A) claim on a specific dataset, and move onto B. I've given you the data for trends, so go ahead, pick the one you think is the most favorable to your cause.
The count is forty-five now for the low climate sensitivity answers, and it now stands at eighteen for the "constellation" question.
Can we agree that your contention is that there are no contradictory predictions in the name of AGW/CAGW in the peer reviewed literature, and that you furthermore contend there exist thus far unspecified good tests to discriminate AGW from natural variation?
"She also criticized Gish for failing to answer objections raised by his opponents.[12]"
You've made an argument. I made an objection. You've refused to answer.
Your argument: the following is a "good test":
(A) AGW precludes the absence of a warming trend -- measured at a decadal time-scale.
decadal is defined as at least 20 years, by your definition (Your words: "Less than two decades doesn't make a trend.")
My objection:
http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p...
We already have observations showing no statistically significant trend for 20+ years in some temperature data sets.
Your response:
Now, you could respond in any number of ways:
1) don't like the data set I've chosen
2) didn't really mean 20 years, really meant 30 years
3) didn't really mean "preclude"
4) don't care about statistical significance, just care about the trend regardless of error bars
5) didn't really mean (A), let's move on to (B)
Instead, what do we get? "Do you have any oblique awareness that you are batshit insane?" Classy, real classy :)
I know it hurts that you've used "gish gallop" as an insult, and find yourself tarred by that brush. I'm sure you didn't intend to fit the shoes of Duane Gish when you decided to use that phrase as an insult. But you did. You've bragged about how many reasons you had, and then stumbled on the very first one out of the gate - and still, post after post after post, you've got no actual reply to the criticism of your argument.
The kind of behavior you're exhibiting is why I tend to lump AGW proponents with creationists - they behave in the same way.
The count is forty-three now for the low climate sensitivity answers, and it now stands at sixteen for the "constellation" question.
Can we agree that your contention is that there are no contradictory predictions in the name of AGW/CAGW in the peer reviewed literature, and that you furthermore contend there exist thus far unspecified good tests to discriminate AGW from natural variation?
" Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, dubbed this approach the "Gish Gallop," describing it as "where the creationist is allowed to run on for 45 minutes or an hour, spewing forth torrents of error that the evolutionist hasn't a prayer of refuting in the format of a debate."[11] She also criticized Gish for failing to answer objections raised by his opponents.[12]"
Like Gish, you're not only galloping, but you continue to fail to answer the objections raised :)
The shoe fits, and you're wearing four of them :)
You stated, "Less than two decades doesn't make a trend." - so, by your definition, at least 20 years is required.
Here's the data:
http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p...
Click on "trend+significance" to see the statistically insignificant areas greyed out.
Click on MSU.RSS
Note the greyed out triangular area beneath the 19 year diagonal line to the lower right of the triangle graph. You'll note there are more than 1.7 points in that data set :)
Now, do you want to have an ad hoc special pleading against specific data sets? Are you unwilling to concede your previously stated "good test" because you doubt the data?
The count is forty-two now for the low climate sensitivity answers, and it now stands at fifteen for the "constellation" question. Your Gish Gallop is reaching epic proportions :)
Can we agree that your contention is that there are no contradictory predictions in the name of AGW/CAGW in the peer reviewed literature, and that you furthermore contend there exist thus far unspecified good tests to discriminate AGW from natural variation?
Yes. Are you aware that the first is simply the second, minus the actual work? :)
You've done a phantom gish gallop, as it were, taking the worst part of the gish gallop, and adding appeal to unnamed authorities on top :)
What does that mean? You came up with what you thought was a "good test" for AGW. It failed. AGW is now falsified by your definition. Q.E.D. This isn't about data points, this is about *your good test*.
Look, if you want to have a do-over, fine. Let's simply restate A as "AGW does *not* preclude...", and you can move onto whatever "B" you want to :)
The count is forty-one now for the low climate sensitivity answers, and it now stands at fourteen for the "constellation" question.
Can we agree that your contention is that there are no contradictory predictions in the name of AGW/CAGW in the peer reviewed literature, and that you furthermore contend there exist thus far unspecified good tests to discriminate AGW from natural variation?
Well, you went ahead and "proudly boast[ed] the number of reasons involved", instead of actually focusing on the fact that your first reason was self defeating :)
And your very first one you cited falsified AGW, a marvelous achievement I wish I could take credit for :)
Or are you saying you were trying to give me a list of *bad* tests for AGW? :)
Look, it's okay, I get why you're not actually answering the questions put to you - you've already argued yourself into a corner, and you're hoping that by ignoring your prima facie hypocrisy, that it'll just go away. Being ashamed is understandable - even your best way out is an admission of error, since your options are to redefine the word "preclude", or admit that your first proposed "good test" was in fact a bad one.
Here, you might like this tool when it comes to seeing how long we've gone with statistically insignificant warming:
http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p...
Click on "trend+significance" - you'll note that for some datasets, we've already gone well past 20 years (decadal, in your terminology).
The count is forty now for the low climate sensitivity answers, and it now stands at thirteen for the "constellation" question.
Can we agree that your contention is that there are no contradictory predictions in the name of AGW/CAGW in the peer reviewed literature, and that you furthermore contend there exist thus far unspecified good tests to discriminate AGW from natural variation?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/G...
"In written form, a Gish Gallop is most commonly observed as a long list of supposed facts or reasons, as a pamphlet or green ink web page, with a title that proudly boasts the number of reasons involved. The individual points must also be fairly terse, so that each point individually can be easy to refute because it simply proves nothing."
Your words:
"There about a few dozen things to cover in order to describe the tests for AGW."
You've boasted about a "few dozen things", and failed to even get your first one right :)
If you want to move the bar to 20 years, fine - we've certainly observed rising CO2 and 20 years of statistically insignificant warming in some modern temperature records, and in the long term proxy records as well.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
"For UAH: Since November 1995: CI from -0.001 to 2.501
For RSS: Since December 1992: CI from -0.005 to 1.968
For Hadcrut4: Since August 1996: CI from -0.006 to 1.358
For Hadsst3: Since May 1993: CI from -0.002 to 1.768
For GISS: Since August 1997: CI from -0.030 to 1.326"
Your need to move the goalposts here is *classic* ad hoc special pleading, and if you're honest with yourself, you'll admit that you'd be arguing that 25 years isn't enough once we hit that in the modern instrumental record.
Put simply, you have not established one whit of credibility here with your "precludes" statement - you've made an empty statement, since your preclusion, be it 20 years, or even 100 years, has been observed in the historical record, and your response to that is invariably an ad hoc special pleading.
Put another way, there is no "A" - properly and honestly stated, the only thing you can defend is this:
A) AGW does not preclude the absence of a warming trend - it is possible for it to be true no matter what temperature trend is observed over any period of time.
Unfortunately, since you haven't started forbidding observations, you haven't even begun the process of Popper's falsifiability :)
The count is thirty-nine now for the low climate sensitivity answers, and it now stands at twelve for the "constellation" question.
Can we agree that your contention is that there are no contradictory predictions in the name of AGW/CAGW in the peer reviewed literature, and that you furthermore contend there exist thus far unspecified good tests to discriminate AGW from natural variation?
Not straying off topic at all - just stopping you from your gish gallop away from your statement of a falsification criteria for AGW that has already been observed, therefore falsifying AGW.
You described a test, and that test has been failed.
Do you *retract* your statement that "AGW precludes the absence of a warming trend"?
Or did you have a different definition of "preclude"?
preclude |priklood|
verb [ with obj. ]
prevent from happening; make impossible
The count is thirty-eight now for the low climate sensitivity answers, and it now stands at eleven for the "constellation" question.
Can we agree that your contention is that there are no contradictory predictions in the name of AGW/CAGW in the peer reviewed literature, and that you furthermore contend there exist thus far unspecified good tests to discriminate AGW from natural variation?
Okay, so you proposed a falsification criteria, you've admitted that it was observed. Do you now admit that AGW is falsified?
Follow along - there is also some lack of warming during a period of rising CO2. If (A) mattered at all to the truth or falsity of AGW, then this singular observation would be enough to falsify it.
How do you defend AGW in the face of the fact that it *precludes* something that we have observed? *Your* words:
"AGW precludes the absence of a warming trend"
We've observed the absence of a warming trend. Q.E.D.
Or did you have a different definition of "preclude"?
preclude |priklood|
verb [ with obj. ]
prevent from happening; make impossible
The count is thirty-seven now for the low climate sensitivity answers, and it now stands at ten for the "constellation" question.
Can we agree that your contention is that there are no contradictory predictions in the name of AGW/CAGW in the peer reviewed literature, and that you furthermore contend there exist thus far unspecified good tests to discriminate AGW from natural variation?
Let's be more specific - AGW should preclude the absence of a warming trend if atmospheric CO2 levels continue to increase, at a decadal time-scale.
NOAA 2008 came close to this assertion, excluding 15 (or 17) year periods of statistically insignificant warming with rising CO2.
We've already *observed* this - http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
Are we ready to assert AGW has been falsified now? Or do we come up with an ad hoc special pleading to protect the central conceit? From Popper:
"A clear appreciation of what may be gained (and lost) by con- ventionalist methods was expressed, a hundred years before Poincaré, by Black who wrote: ‘A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any hypothesis agree with the phenomena. This will please the imagination but does not advance our knowledge.’1"
Do you agree that the world has seen an absence of warming at a decadal time-scale while CO2 has continued to increase?
The count is thirty-six now for the low climate sensitivity answers, and it now stands at nine for the "constellation" question.
Can we agree that your contention is that there are no contradictory predictions in the name of AGW/CAGW in the peer reviewed literature, and that you furthermore contend there exist thus far unspecified good tests to discriminate AGW from natural variation?
Yes. I'm open to the idea that good tests may exist for AGW, but none cited thus far by you, or anyone else I've seen have reached that level. Like any good scientist, I'm open to the refutation of my own hypothesis - all someone has to do is cite a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement to refute my hypothesis that posits the lack thereof :)
The count is thirty-five now for the low climate sensitivity answers, and it now stands at eight for the "constellation" question.
Can we agree that your contention is that there are no contradictory predictions in the name of AGW/CAGW in the peer reviewed literature, and that you furthermore contend there exist thus far unspecified good tests to discriminate AGW from natural variation?
I'm saying that so far, nobody has enumerated a set of good tests for AGW that would discriminate AGW from natural variation. In some ways, this is simply a feature of our ignorance, since any of these observations can be "explained":
1) CO2 up, temp up - "classic" AGW
2) CO2 up, temp flat - "hidden heat" ad hoc special pleading to preserve AGW
3) CO2 up, temp down - "hidden heat" ad hoc special pleading to preserve AGW
4) CO2 flat, temp up - "lingering effects" AGW
5) CO2 flat, temp flat - "classic" AGW
6) CO2 flat, temp down - "hidden heat" ad hoc special pleading to preserve AGW
7) CO2 down, temp up - "it's worse than we thought" AGW
8) CO2 down, temp flat - "hidden heat" ad hoc special pleading to preserve AGW
9) CO2 down, temp down - "classic" AGW
When you think about it, every combination is possible with natural variation - we've observed every single one of those cases in the historical record. Without precise knowledge about all natural variations, we're quite stuck. Such systems aren't completely impossible to analyze (note the accuracy of tide predictions simply through fourier transforms), but often our analysis is not one that is something that can discriminate individual causes even as it is incredibly accurate and predictive. http://www.co-ops.nos.noaa.gov...
The count is thirty-four now for the low climate sensitivity answers, and it now stands at seven for the "constellation" question.
Can we agree that your contention is that there are no contradictory predictions in the name of AGW/CAGW in the peer reviewed literature, and that you furthermore contend there exist thus far unspecified good tests to discriminate AGW from natural variation?
I'll be a bit more gentle - I'm maintaining that you have not shown a set of good tests for #1. They could exist, but thus far, nobody, including yourself, or anyone you've ever quoted, or anyone anyone has ever quoted, has shown a set of good tests for #1.
You've cited some that are obviously not "good tests" in the Popperian sense (being necessary, but not logically sufficient to discriminate your hypothesis from others), and have hinted that you might in fact have a "good test" with low climate sensitivity, but you haven't put a specific number on it, nor made any sort of logical defense that it should be set at an arbitrary position.
The count is thirty-three now for the low climate sensitivity answers, and it now stands at six for the "constellation" question:
Do you admit that there are peer reviewed papers, supporting the idea of AGW/CAGW, that predict the *opposite* of each other, so that when either observation is made, instead of AGW/CAGW being falsified, we simply assert that the falsified prediction was not in fact necessary to AGW/CAGW?
Maybe I could put the "constellation" question another way:
Are you maintaining that there are no contradictory predictions in the name of AGW/CAGW in the peer reviewed literature?
Six of one, half dozen of another - no good tests, not falsifiable.
Sure, I think you got that already, but let me restate just in case:
1) AGW - the hypothesis that human activity, specifically CO2 emissions, are the cause of measurable increase in the global average temperature beyond natural variation.
2) CAGW - the hypothesis that human activity, specifically CO2 emissions, are the cause of measurable increase in the global average temperature beyond natural variation that will cause more harm than benefit. Typically asserted as *significantly* more harm than benefit.
Neither of those should be controversial to you - and neither of those are stated with any sort of falsification criteria, and so cannot be considered containing necessary and sufficient falsification criteria.
As for a gish gallop, the low sensitivity and "constellation" questions are fairly straightforward.
The count is thirty-two now for the low climate sensitivity answers, and it now stands at five for the "constellation" question:
Do you admit that there are peer reviewed papers, supporting the idea of AGW/CAGW, that predict the *opposite* of each other, so that when either observation is made, instead of AGW/CAGW being falsified, we simply assert that the falsified prediction was not in fact necessary to AGW/CAGW?