if you actually understood Popper, then you'd realize that a statement of a theory is not the same as finding good tests for the theory.
I understand that. I'm asserting you're not finding good tests. I'm also asserting that your statements of theory are not falsifiable because you fail to find good tests.
It is logically possible to make a statement of a theory which is not falsifiable - and you've done so on many an occasion thus far:) It is also logically possible to put together a statement which contains the good tests necessary for a falsifiable theory. I'm asking for the second.
Secondly, as a matter of rhetorical style, you must stick to one thing at a time.
I do my best, but you seem to keep ignoring my one thing:) Your dodges are artful, no doubt, but you and I both recognize them for what they are:)
The count is thirty-one now for the low climate sensitivity answers, but it now stands at four 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?
No, I think you're barking up the wrong tree again.
"natural variables explain the record better" assumes some sort of perfect knowledge about natural variables, and fails to understand that an arbitrary anthropogenic model can be tuned to "explain"...especially when you have a half dozen different models that all have say, different climate sensitivity variables, but spout the same output. Not much to see there but the tuning of a model. You might restate:
"AGW would be falsified if any non-anthropogenic variables of any sort, known or unknown to humanity, explain the record better than anthropogenic variables."
Since it's impossible to enumerate the unknown variables, that statement is a *poor* test.
Again, from Popper:
"This is very necessary; for a severe test of a system presup- poses that it is at the time sufficiently definite and final in form to make it impossible for new assumptions to be smuggled in. In other words, the system must be formulated sufficiently clearly and definitely to make every new assumption easily recognizable for what it is: a modification and therefore a revision of the system."
Put another way, with a cohort of 25 GCMs, how many of them do you consider falsified by observations? They obviously can't all be true (since they have different variables for the same things), and we have no reason to believe that they would be randomly distributed so their average isn't a path to truth either.
We still haven't seen any set of statements that would be a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW. No observations have yet been specified that AGW *excludes* any more than natural climate change.
So, let's put the shoe on the other foot:
1) Natural climate change would be falsified if the modern record is beyond the bounds of any observed natural variation prior to the industrial age; 2) A beneficent warming planet would be falsified if the historical record showed a more diverse and stable ecosystem during colder periods than warmer periods.
I'm sure you'll agree that both of these statements are true, and that neither falsification has been observed.
With your point 2, you get a bit closer, but you fail to specify what we mean by "sensitivity is low to anthropogenic variables", nor do you give any argument why a small deviation from that cut off point could not be argued for as well. And if you assert "warmer planet is good/not a big deal" as a falsification for CAGW, we already have good cause to believe that we've observed that in the past...so if you want that as a falsification criteria, then we can agree that CAGW is both falsifiable *and* has been falsified.
The count is thirty now for the low climate sensitivity answers, but it now stands at three 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?
I agree that is what is being *asserted*. I've seen no metric of enumeration for desirable and undesirable outcomes, nor is there any historical argument to show for example, that our world in 2014 (approximately 0.8C warmer than 1914) is less desirable than the world in 1914. Of course I'm sure technology serves as a great confounder there, but then, so could it be in the future as well.
To be more specific and scientific, CAGW should exclude something - i.e., it should exclude cases where a warmer world is more desirable than a colder one, at least over some specific range, or exclude cases where a greater rate in warming is more desirable than a slower rate. Only by specifying the exclusions (and ridding ourselves of the "covering all your bets" pattern of "AGW will cause A" and "AGW will cause NOT A"), do we actually get to the falsifiability required to assert CAGW is falsifiable in the strictest sense.
The count is twenty-nine now for the low climate answers, but it now stands at two 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?
The net effects are significantly undesirable -- accounting for both desirable and undesirable outcomes.
I don't agree that that has been shown, but I agree that is what is being *asserted*. I've seen no metric of enumeration for desirable and undesirable outcomes, nor is there any historical argument to show for example, that our world in 2014 (approximately 0.8C warmer than 1914) is less desirable than the world in 1914. Of course I'm sure technology serves as a great confounder there, but then, so could it be in the future as well.
The count is twenty-eight now for the low climate answers, but it now stands at one 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?
Note that if any of the predictions in question were to come true, it would've been claimed as a validation of AGW/CAGW - but notice how these hollow predictions, once failed, don't touch the central conceit in question?
According to Lakatois, you must show a better theory (or collection there of) in order to falsify, or you are stuck in "naive falsification", which certainly sounds like you.
Actually, quite an accurate critique of the AGW/CAGW position - the null hypothesis that needs to be excluded is natural climate change. Nothing yet predicted in the whole mountain of various and contradictory predictions of the AGW/CAGW movement has excluded natural climate change (neither rate of change, nor amount of change).
CAGW can only be shown if the net effect of AGW is going to have significant undesirable effects.
Not sure if you're being clever with your construction there, but the "net effect" of AGW could have "significant undesirable effects" at the same time that it has significant *desirable* effects. CAGW is only shown if the "net effect" shows *more* significant undesirable effects than significant desirable effects (measured in some metric of "desirable" that is undefined at this point).
Which, unless you can specify some metric for "desirable/undesirable effects", is a fool's errand. Hell, just looking at the effect on the biosphere in the past warm periods compared to past cold periods gives us at least some historical basis to doubt it's premise.
by showing that AGW is not true -- which itself relies on a considerable constellation of testable theories.
But, unlike the demands of the scientific method, there has been no logical argument put forth as to why the "considerable constellation" of *necessary* factors is in fact *sufficient* for us to consider them "good tests" or an appropriate exclusion of "new assumptions":
"This is very necessary; for a severe test of a system presup- poses that it is at the time sufficiently definite and final in form to make it impossible for new assumptions to be smuggled in. In other words, the system must be formulated sufficiently clearly and definitely to make every new assumption easily recognizable for what it is: a modification and therefore a revision of the system."
I can give you a reasonable testable prediction for CAGW which would kill it with 5-10 years worth of measurement.
And I'll bet that I can give you the ad hoc special pleading that would preserve the CAGW belief no matter what your testable prediction is:)
Think of it:
1) more CO2, more warming - assert CAGW true (put aside the fact that "catastrophe" is a political slogan 2) more CO2, no warming - assert CAGW true, temporarily paused due to aerosol activity that was anomalous 3) more CO2, more cooling - assert CAGW true, temporarily paused due to aerosol activity that was anomalous 4) stable CO2, more warming - assert CAGW true (heat "in the pipe") 5) stable CO2, no warming - assert CAGW true (correlation fits again) 6) stable CO2, more cooling - assert CAGW true, temporarily paused due to aerosol activity that was anomalous 7) decreasing CO2, more warming - assert CAGW true, insist that the "hidden CO2" is not acidifying the ocean, or doing something else nefarious out of the atmosphere 8) decreasing CO2, no warming - assert CAGW true, but expected temperature decrease paused by ocean heat activity making up the difference. 9) decreasing CO2, more cooling - assert CAGW true (correlation fits again)
Popper noted it this way:
"For it is always possible to find some way of evading falsification, for example by introducing ad hoc an auxiliary hypothesis, or by changing ad hoc a definition. It is even possible without logical inconsistency to adopt the position of simply refusing to acknowledge any falsifying experience whatsoever"
So, let's see, going on twenty-seven posts now, still waiting for answers to the questions:
What specific measure of climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 would you consider a falsification of AGW and CAGW?
1) your list of tests are not good tests because they don't exclude other explanations besides your favored one; 2) in order to have a list of good tests sufficient for a hypothesis, the lack of those observations must logically lead us to conclude only our favored hypothesis.
Take your pick:)
Some more Popper quotes for you, particularly regarding "mountains of evidence":
"For I am going to propose (in sections 20 f.) that the empirical method shall be characterized as a method that excludes precisely those ways of evading falsification which, as my imaginary critic rightly insists, are logically possible. According to my proposal, what charac- terizes the empirical method is its manner of exposing to falsification, in every conceivable way, the system to be tested. Its aim is not to save the lives of untenable systems but, on the contrary, to select the one which is by comparison the fittest, by exposing them all to the fiercest struggle for survival."
"A system such as classical mechanics may be ‘scientific’ to any degree you like; but those who uphold it dogmatically—believing, perhaps, that it is their business to defend such a successful system against criticism as long as it is not conclusively disproved—are adopting the very reverse of that critical attitude which in my view is the proper one for the scientist."
" This is very necessary; for a severe test of a system presup- poses that it is at the time sufficiently definite and final in form to make it impossible for new assumptions to be smuggled in. In other words, the system must be formulated sufficiently clearly and definitely to make every new assumption easily recognizable for what it is: a modification and therefore a revision of the system."
"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"
"A theory is to be called ‘empirical’ or ‘falsifiable’ if it divides the class of all possible basic statements unambiguously into the following two non-empty sub- classes. First, the class of all those basic statements with which it is inconsistent (or which it rules out, or prohibits): we call this the class of the potential falsifiers of the theory; and secondly, the class of those basic statements which it does not contradict (or which it ‘permits’). We can put this more briefly by saying: a theory is falsifiable if the class of its potential falsifiers is not empty."
"It might then be said, further, that if the class of potential falsifiers of one theory is ‘larger’ than that of another, there will be more opportunities for the first theory to be refuted by experience; thus compared with the second theory, the first theory may be said to be ‘falsifiable in a higher degree’. This also means that the first theory says more about the world of experience than the second theory, for it rules out a larger class of basic statements. Although the class of permitted statements will thereby become smaller, this does not affect our argu- ment; for we have seen that the theory does not assert anything about this class. Thus it can be said that the amount of empirical information conveyed by a theory, or its empirical content, increases with its degree of falsifiability."
"We say that a theory is ‘corroborated’ so long as it stands up to these tests. The appraisal which asserts corroboration (the corroborative appraisal) establishes certain fundamental relations, viz. compatibility and incompatibility. We regard incompatibility as falsification of the theory. But compatibility alone must not make us attribute to the the- ory a positive degree of corroboration: the mere fact that a theory h
"With the help of other statements, previously accepted, certain singular statements— which we may call ‘predictions’—are deduced from the theory; especially predictions that are easily testable or applicable.
* From among these statements, those are selected which are not derivable from the current theory, and more especially those which the current theory contradicts. "
Your specific problem, in terms of the quote provided, is that your predictions are derivable from more than simply AGW/CAGW hypotheses. If you cannot exclude observations that could be explained through natural, non-athropogenic mechanisms and feedbacks, you've done nothing to satisfy Popper's deductive testing of theories. I have paraphrased this into a demand that logically asserts that our deductions from a hypothesis, must logically make us conclude only our proposed hypothesis is true.
Your citation actually backs me up: "For the sophisticated falsificationist a theory is "acceptable" or "scientific" only if it has corroborated excess empirical content over its predecessor (or rival), that is, only if it leads to the discovery of novel facts."
There is nothing novel about CO2 being a greenhouse gas, and nothing about CO2 being a greenhouse gas that excludes natural climate change as the reason for observed temperature increases since the little ice age. All of your assertions of potential falsifications *fail* - with the possible exception of low climate sensitivity, which you've been completely unable to defend.
So, let's see, going on twenty-five posts now, still waiting for answers to the questions:
What specific measure of climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 would you consider a falsification of AGW and CAGW?
What argument do you have to exclude a small increase in climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 from your initial falsification criteria?
The fact that your critiques of me continue to fail to include any sort of answer to the question is very telling, don't you think?:)
I've paraphrased Popper, and you've refused to accept it. I've provided the complete Popper work, and you've refused to read it, or been unable to understand it. You don't believe that I'm accurately paraphrasing Popper, but still can't seem to make the logical argument that any of your specific falsification observations are anything but trivial falsifications that are not sufficient to make for a falsifiable hypothesis.
Are you really going to make the argument that observing CO2 not being a greenhouse gas is a sufficient specification of falsification criteria for AGW/CAGW as to be considered non-trivial? Really? Your best opportunity to defend your point of view is on the idea of climate sensitivity, but you feign offense as an excuse not to answer:) It's as transparent as any juvenile attempt to change the subject:)
So, let's see, going on twenty-four posts now, still waiting for answers to the questions:
What specific measure of climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 would you consider a falsification of AGW and CAGW?
What argument do you have to exclude a small increase in climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 from your initial falsification criteria?
The fact that your critiques of me continue to fail to include any sort of answer to the question is very telling, don't you think?:)
You're again misunderstanding Popper's intent. The necessity of falsifiability is not satisfied simply by a trivial falsification - it must be more than that, and he explains himself in quite a bit of detail. The gist of it is, you need a logical argument for why the lack of falsification observations excludes all other explanation besides your hypothesis. That's a summary of his point, that apparently you can't see in the details itself.
So, let's see, going on twenty-two posts now, still waiting for answers to the questions:
What specific measure of climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 would you consider a falsification of AGW and CAGW?
What argument do you have to exclude a small increase in climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 from your initial falsification criteria?
The fact that your critiques of me continue to fail to include any sort of answer to the question is very telling, don't you think?:)
I'm sorry you can't figure out what Popper meant based on his words. Yes, I've paraphrased him, and you won't find an exact quote. If you actually *read* his book, it should be obvious that sufficiency is required - you cannot possibly assert that you've made a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for a single proposition if it cannot exclude other hypotheses.
So, let's see, going on twenty-one posts now, still waiting for answers to the questions:
What specific measure of climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 would you consider a falsification of AGW and CAGW?
What argument do you have to exclude a small increase in climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 from your initial falsification criteria?
The fact that your critiques of me continue to fail to include any sort of answer to the question is very telling, don't you think?:)
"Besides being consistent, an empirical system should satisfy a fur- ther condition: it must be falsifiable. The two conditions are to a large extent analogous.1 Statements which do not satisfy the condition of consistency fail to differentiate between any two statements within the totality of all possible statements. Statements which do not satisfy the condition of falsifiability fail to differentiate between any two statements within the totality of all possible empirical basic statements."
Again, you've failed to understand that a proposed set of falsifications that cannot discern between two different hypotheses. Another section from Popper:
"An example of an auxiliary hypothesis which is eminently acceptable in this sense is Pauli’s exclu- sion principle (cf. section 38). An example of an unsatisfactory aux- iliary hypothesis would be the contraction hypothesis of Fitzgerald and Lorentz which had no falsifiable consequences but merely*1 served to restore the agreement between theory and experiment—mainly the findings of Michelson and Morley."
So, let's see, going on twenty posts now, still waiting for answers to the questions:
What specific measure of climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 would you consider a falsification of AGW and CAGW?
What argument do you have to exclude a small increase in climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 from your initial falsification criteria?
The fact that your critiques of me continue to fail to include any sort of answer to the question is very telling, don't you think?:)
Do you need me to post the entire chapter for you? Have you failed to understand what he says about the requirement of sufficiency?
Put another way, do you imagine that having a set of falsification observations, that if not observed, could support multiple hypotheses, is enough to discern between them?
You can state that an orange weighs half a pound, and if the object you weigh is not half a pound, then it is not an orange - but you haven't done anything to show that "all things that weigh half a pound are oranges" - your falsification criteria must *exclude* other explanations (like a half-pound hamburger).
So, let's see, going on nineteen posts now, still waiting for answers to the questions:
What specific measure of climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 would you consider a falsification of AGW and CAGW?
What argument do you have to exclude a small increase in climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 from your initial falsification criteria?
The fact that your critiques of me continue to fail to include any sort of answer to the question is very telling, don't you think?:)
I highly suggest reading the entire thing. But here's the question of necessary and sufficient (intro para, there's more following):
"We say that a theory is falsified only if we have accepted basic state- ments which contradict it (cf. section 11, rule 2). This condition is necessary, but not sufficient; for we have seen that non-reproducible single occurrences are of no significance to science. Thus a few stray basic statements contradicting a theory will hardly induce us to reject it as falsified. We shall take it as falsified only if we discover a reproducible effect which refutes the theory. In other words, we only accept the falsification if a low-level empirical hypothesis which describes such an effect is proposed and corroborated."
So, let's see, going on seventeen posts now, still waiting for answers to the questions:
What specific measure of climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 would you consider a falsification of AGW and CAGW?
What argument do you have to exclude a small increase in climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 from your initial falsification criteria?
The fact that your critiques of me continue to fail to include any sort of answer to the question is very telling, don't you think?:)
What don't you understand about the idea of a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis? If your falsification criteria could be used to support multiple hypotheses, how would you discern which one is true? Don't you understand the need to be specific to your favored hypothesis?
The whole *point* of Karl Popper's explanation of this basic principle of the scientific method is to derive knowledge from *exclusion* - is there some reason why he's confused you? Start here:
The idea of a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement is fundamental to the scientific method from its inception, but most eloquently spoken of by Karl Popper. I assume you've heard of him, but my guess is you haven't actually *read* him. I highly recommend both his books and papers.
So, let's see, going on fifteen posts now, still waiting for answers to the questions:
What specific measure of climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 would you consider a falsification of AGW and CAGW?
What argument do you have to exclude a small increase in climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 from your initial falsification criteria?
The fact that your critiques of me continue to fail to include any sort of answer to the question is very telling, don't you think?:)
Lacking an explicit answer, let's be clear that implicitly you're saying that there is no climate sensitivity that would falsify your belief system, and that even if there were you'd have no cogent argument as to why it was set there. I'm totally cool with that, since your continued lack of answer simply strengthens my case, but I thought I'd be very clear as to how you're damaging your proposition in this debate:)
#2 listed does not specify whether things are observed or not, it simply demands that there is a logical argument that if they are *not* observed, then the only conclusion is AGW/CAGW.
I'm not making a pre-judgement on whether or not these observations will happen or not, but the sufficient set of falsification criteria must exist, and must have a logical argument for why their absence at the very least implies AGW/CAGW over all other explanations.
What part about this exercise aren't you understanding? Do you think I'm insisting that specified observations must *exist* and already be observed? I'm simply asking for these *possible* observations to be *specified*, so that if we *do* see them, we recognize them.
For example, "all swans are white". Falsified by the observation of a single black swan. We may never see a single black swan - that's an open question.
Or, "life only exists on earth". Falsified by the observation of a single life form anywhere else in the universe. We may never see extraterrestrial life - it's an open question.
So, AGW/CAGW. Falsified by [necessary] [sufficient] observations. We may never see those observations - it's an open question.
You seem to be asking for a logical statement that proves AGW is true, which is not the opposite of proving it is false.
You still don't understand - I'm not looking for something to prove AGW is true. I'm looking for you to show me a set of observations that will do two things:
1) if they are observed, then AGW/CAGW is falsified; (necessary) 2) if they are not observed, then the *only* logical conclusion is AGW/CAGW. (sufficient)
You've done a bang up job of noting a few things in part 1, but you've been unable to defend part 2.
So, let's see, going on fourteen posts now, still waiting for answers to the questions:
What specific measure of climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 would you consider a falsification of AGW and CAGW?
What argument do you have to exclude a small increase in climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 from your initial falsification criteria?
The fact that your critiques of me continue to fail to include any sort of answer to the question is very telling, don't you think?:)
I don't need to defend *anything* between [P...Z], because I'm not arguing whether AGW is true or not -- just trying to get you to admit that it can be falsified.
Ah, I see your misunderstanding.
I'm not asking you to defend the *truth* of AGW or CAGW - I'm asking you to defend the *falsifiability* of it. Specifically, you need to show a [P,R...Z] exists such that it is a "necessary and sufficient" falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW or CAGW.
*any* of those statements would falsify AGW. So AGW is falsifiable.
Yes, but those are only *necessary*, not *necessary and sufficient*. Follow along with me:
1) CO2 is not a greenhouse gas
The fact that any specific gas is a greenhouse gas does not make AGW or CAGW true. While this is *necessary*, clearly, it is not sufficient to simply declare the radiative properties of a greenhouse gas. It is not only possible, but likely that CO2 is a greenhouse gas primarily driven by atmospheric temperature, rather than the other way around.
So, not *sufficient*.
2) The warming is due to the sun
This is simply shifting the burden of proof. Even if this falsification is *not* observed, it does not mean that the only remaining cause of warming is CO2. Natural causes of climate change span more than the sun. Of course, trivially, the observed warming must not have some other genesis, but simply excluding one genesis does not exclude all but your preferred.
So, *necessary* but not *necessary and sufficient*.
3) The CO2 is natural
Again, *necessary* (since if it's not CO2 from humans, you get rid of the A), but not *sufficient*, since it's quite possible that humans add CO2 to the atmosphere, but it does not measurably affect atmospheric temperatures.
So, *necessary* but not *necessary and sufficient*.
Do you understand? Can you admit that AGW is falsifiable?
Do *you* understand? Can you admit that while you have found trivial, *necessary* components for AGW and CAGW to be true, until you have the list include enough criteria to be *sufficient*, and exclude all other competing explanations (including the null hypothesis of any form of natural variation), you've failed your task.
Astrology can be falsified by:
1) there not being stars; 2) stars not having gravity; 3) there not being an earth; 4) there not being people.
All of these are arguably falsifications because astrology *must* have the opposite to be true - there *must* be stars, they *must* have gravity, there *must* be an earth and there *must* be people for Astrology to work. But listing out all the "musts" (i.e., *necessary* factors) is not necessarily listing out enough criteria to be *sufficient*.
Can you grok the difference?
Now, you missed one item - the low climate sensitivity, arguably your strongest argument.
So, let's see, going on thirteen posts now, still waiting for answers to the questions:
What specific measure of climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 would you consider a falsification of AGW and CAGW?
What argument do you have to exclude a small increase in climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 from your initial falsification criteria?
The fact that your critiques of me continue to fail to include any sort of answer to the question is very telling, don't you think?:)
We're not talking about the truth value of [P..Z], just the nature of the equation.
Logic lesson for you:
You have options of [P,R..Z] - you must show that at *least* one of those is a "necessary and sufficient" falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW or CAGW.
Thus far, you have been unable to defend *anything* between [P,R...Z]. You've made 4 propositions for values of [P,R...Z], and you've been unable to defend the strongest one. You haven't been able to defend any of the weaker ones either.
So, you can argue this two ways:
1) successfully defend *any* of your propositions; 2) insist that even if all of your propositions are indefensible, that somewhere, out there, some unspecified proposition will in fact be defensible, and on that basis we should accept the truth of Q.
I see your misunderstanding. Well, two possible misunderstandings.
1) You've stated Q = Q (i.e., proposition Q is true if Q is true) - obviously an error on your part, but you should be aware.
2) Of [P, R...Z], your strongest argument is P (i.e., low climate sensitivity). Consider picking that one as a favor to you:)
3) You have been unable to defend P at all, and given that it is your strongest argument, it's unlikely that any of the others will stand.
You think CAGW is false.
But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about "does CAGW have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement?" Leave for the moment whether or not the hypothesis is true aside - the question is do you have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
We've taken your Q = [P,R...Z] argument, found your strongest candidate, and you've been unable to defend it.
Here - *you* pick what you think your strongest argument is:) Go ahead, pick your strongest one, and we'll hit that first:)
Oh, what's that you say? The whole game is to avoid answering questions about your arguments, so you decline to pick one?:)
So, let's see, going on twelve posts now, still waiting for answers to the questions:
What specific measure of climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 would you consider a falsification of AGW and CAGW?
What argument do you have to exclude a small increase in climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 from your initial falsification criteria?
The fact that your continued critiques of me fail to include any sort of answer to the question is very telling, don't you think?:)
At the most generous, an egregious misunderstanding of what I said occurred. Most likely, however, the misunderstanding was malicious and intentional, and simply a tactic to "score a point" as it were in some imaginary game being played in microbox's head:)
So, let's see, going on eleven posts now, still waiting for answers to the questions:
What specific measure of climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 would you consider a falsification of AGW and CAGW?
What argument do you have to exclude a small increase in climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 from your initial falsification criteria?
The fact that your critique of me failed to include any sort of answer to the question is very telling, don't you think?:)
Great, so you agree that you can falsify AGW and CAGW without reference to climate sensitivity.
No, I agree that you claimed that:) You haven't shown that at all, and given the fact that you can't even make the argument for a specific "low climate sensitivity", I doubt you'll be able to show it at all:)
The main problem was that you honed in on one point which you wanted to attack, but ignored the larger argument
I honed in on the first thing on your list - there is no "larger argument" if you can't defend it's pieces:)
you need to promise to restrict yourself to very specific topics, address the *strongest* argument, and gracefully concede points when appropriate
I will promise to do so once you agree that you have not shown that either AGW or CAGW have necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statements, and gracefully concede that you have no defense for any specification of "low climate sensitivity" or argument for why it should be set in any particular place:)
Heck, I've already done most of what you've asked - your strongest argument was the "low climate sensitivity", and I've restricted myself to that for quite a while now:)
Here, let me reprint your list of four points, in order:
* climate sensitivity is low, This is probably your best angle.
* CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas Too obviously insufficient, since the radiative properties of a molecule don't automatically lead to some strong overarching AGW or CAGW.
* humans didn't put it there, Another weak one, since the isotope ratios don't really show what you think it shows.
* there are negative feedbacks To obviously already observed - once you admit this is a falsification, you've already falsified your theory!
So, let's see, going on ten posts now, let's see if you can answer the questions:
What specific measure of climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 would you consider a falsification of AGW and CAGW?
What argument do you have to exclude a small increase in climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 from your initial falsification criteria?
Slashdot Mirror
I understand that. I'm asserting you're not finding good tests. I'm also asserting that your statements of theory are not falsifiable because you fail to find good tests.
It is logically possible to make a statement of a theory which is not falsifiable - and you've done so on many an occasion thus far :) It is also logically possible to put together a statement which contains the good tests necessary for a falsifiable theory. I'm asking for the second.
I do my best, but you seem to keep ignoring my one thing :) Your dodges are artful, no doubt, but you and I both recognize them for what they are :)
The count is thirty-one now for the low climate sensitivity answers, but it now stands at four 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?
No, I think you're barking up the wrong tree again.
"natural variables explain the record better" assumes some sort of perfect knowledge about natural variables, and fails to understand that an arbitrary anthropogenic model can be tuned to "explain"...especially when you have a half dozen different models that all have say, different climate sensitivity variables, but spout the same output. Not much to see there but the tuning of a model. You might restate:
"AGW would be falsified if any non-anthropogenic variables of any sort, known or unknown to humanity, explain the record better than anthropogenic variables."
Since it's impossible to enumerate the unknown variables, that statement is a *poor* test.
Again, from Popper:
"This is very necessary; for a severe test of a system presup- poses that it is at the time sufficiently definite and final in form to make it impossible for new assumptions to be smuggled in. In other words, the system must be formulated sufficiently clearly and definitely to make every new assumption easily recognizable for what it is: a modification and therefore a revision of the system."
Put another way, with a cohort of 25 GCMs, how many of them do you consider falsified by observations? They obviously can't all be true (since they have different variables for the same things), and we have no reason to believe that they would be randomly distributed so their average isn't a path to truth either.
We still haven't seen any set of statements that would be a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW. No observations have yet been specified that AGW *excludes* any more than natural climate change.
So, let's put the shoe on the other foot:
1) Natural climate change would be falsified if the modern record is beyond the bounds of any observed natural variation prior to the industrial age;
2) A beneficent warming planet would be falsified if the historical record showed a more diverse and stable ecosystem during colder periods than warmer periods.
I'm sure you'll agree that both of these statements are true, and that neither falsification has been observed.
With your point 2, you get a bit closer, but you fail to specify what we mean by "sensitivity is low to anthropogenic variables", nor do you give any argument why a small deviation from that cut off point could not be argued for as well. And if you assert "warmer planet is good/not a big deal" as a falsification for CAGW, we already have good cause to believe that we've observed that in the past...so if you want that as a falsification criteria, then we can agree that CAGW is both falsifiable *and* has been falsified.
The count is thirty now for the low climate sensitivity answers, but it now stands at three 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?
I agree that is what is being *asserted*. I've seen no metric of enumeration for desirable and undesirable outcomes, nor is there any historical argument to show for example, that our world in 2014 (approximately 0.8C warmer than 1914) is less desirable than the world in 1914. Of course I'm sure technology serves as a great confounder there, but then, so could it be in the future as well.
To be more specific and scientific, CAGW should exclude something - i.e., it should exclude cases where a warmer world is more desirable than a colder one, at least over some specific range, or exclude cases where a greater rate in warming is more desirable than a slower rate. Only by specifying the exclusions (and ridding ourselves of the "covering all your bets" pattern of "AGW will cause A" and "AGW will cause NOT A"), do we actually get to the falsifiability required to assert CAGW is falsifiable in the strictest sense.
The count is twenty-nine now for the low climate answers, but it now stands at two 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?
I don't agree that that has been shown, but I agree that is what is being *asserted*. I've seen no metric of enumeration for desirable and undesirable outcomes, nor is there any historical argument to show for example, that our world in 2014 (approximately 0.8C warmer than 1914) is less desirable than the world in 1914. Of course I'm sure technology serves as a great confounder there, but then, so could it be in the future as well.
The count is twenty-eight now for the low climate answers, but it now stands at one 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?
Example of AGW/CAGW predictions that are apparently not part of the falsifiability criteria: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ne...
Note that if any of the predictions in question were to come true, it would've been claimed as a validation of AGW/CAGW - but notice how these hollow predictions, once failed, don't touch the central conceit in question?
Actually, quite an accurate critique of the AGW/CAGW position - the null hypothesis that needs to be excluded is natural climate change. Nothing yet predicted in the whole mountain of various and contradictory predictions of the AGW/CAGW movement has excluded natural climate change (neither rate of change, nor amount of change).
Not sure if you're being clever with your construction there, but the "net effect" of AGW could have "significant undesirable effects" at the same time that it has significant *desirable* effects. CAGW is only shown if the "net effect" shows *more* significant undesirable effects than significant desirable effects (measured in some metric of "desirable" that is undefined at this point).
Which, unless you can specify some metric for "desirable/undesirable effects", is a fool's errand. Hell, just looking at the effect on the biosphere in the past warm periods compared to past cold periods gives us at least some historical basis to doubt it's premise.
But, unlike the demands of the scientific method, there has been no logical argument put forth as to why the "considerable constellation" of *necessary* factors is in fact *sufficient* for us to consider them "good tests" or an appropriate exclusion of "new assumptions":
"This is very necessary; for a severe test of a system presup- poses that it is at the time sufficiently definite and final in form to make it impossible for new assumptions to be smuggled in. In other words, the system must be formulated sufficiently clearly and definitely to make every new assumption easily recognizable for what it is: a modification and therefore a revision of the system."
And I'll bet that I can give you the ad hoc special pleading that would preserve the CAGW belief no matter what your testable prediction is :)
Think of it:
1) more CO2, more warming - assert CAGW true (put aside the fact that "catastrophe" is a political slogan
2) more CO2, no warming - assert CAGW true, temporarily paused due to aerosol activity that was anomalous
3) more CO2, more cooling - assert CAGW true, temporarily paused due to aerosol activity that was anomalous
4) stable CO2, more warming - assert CAGW true (heat "in the pipe")
5) stable CO2, no warming - assert CAGW true (correlation fits again)
6) stable CO2, more cooling - assert CAGW true, temporarily paused due to aerosol activity that was anomalous
7) decreasing CO2, more warming - assert CAGW true, insist that the "hidden CO2" is not acidifying the ocean, or doing something else nefarious out of the atmosphere
8) decreasing CO2, no warming - assert CAGW true, but expected temperature decrease paused by ocean heat activity making up the difference.
9) decreasing CO2, more cooling - assert CAGW true (correlation fits again)
Popper noted it this way:
"For it is always possible to find some way of evading falsification, for example by introducing ad hoc an auxiliary hypothesis, or by changing ad hoc a definition. It is even possible without logical inconsistency to adopt the position of simply refusing to acknowledge any falsifying experience whatsoever"
So, let's see, going on twenty-seven posts now, still waiting for answers to the questions:
What specific measure of climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 would you consider a falsification of AGW and CAGW?
Both these statements are true:
1) your list of tests are not good tests because they don't exclude other explanations besides your favored one;
2) in order to have a list of good tests sufficient for a hypothesis, the lack of those observations must logically lead us to conclude only our favored hypothesis.
Take your pick :)
Some more Popper quotes for you, particularly regarding "mountains of evidence":
"For I am going to propose (in sections 20 f.) that the empirical method shall be characterized as a method that excludes precisely those ways of evading falsification which, as my imaginary critic rightly insists, are logically possible. According to my proposal, what charac- terizes the empirical method is its manner of exposing to falsification, in every conceivable way, the system to be tested. Its aim is not to save the lives of untenable systems but, on the contrary, to select the one which is by comparison the fittest, by exposing them all to the fiercest struggle for survival."
"A system such as classical mechanics may be ‘scientific’ to any degree you like; but those who uphold it dogmatically—believing, perhaps, that it is their business to defend such a successful system against criticism as long as it is not conclusively disproved—are adopting the very reverse of that critical attitude which in my view is the proper one for the scientist."
" This is very necessary; for a severe test of a system presup- poses that it is at the time sufficiently definite and final in form to make it impossible for new assumptions to be smuggled in. In other words, the system must be formulated sufficiently clearly and definitely to make every new assumption easily recognizable for what it is: a modification and therefore a revision of the system."
"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"
"A theory is to be called ‘empirical’ or ‘falsifiable’ if it divides the class of all possible basic statements unambiguously into the following two non-empty sub- classes. First, the class of all those basic statements with which it is inconsistent (or which it rules out, or prohibits): we call this the class of the potential falsifiers of the theory; and secondly, the class of those basic statements which it does not contradict (or which it ‘permits’). We can put this more briefly by saying: a theory is falsifiable if the class of its potential falsifiers is not empty."
"It might then be said, further, that if the class of potential falsifiers of one theory is ‘larger’ than that of another, there will be more opportunities for the first theory to be refuted by experience; thus compared with the second theory, the first theory may be said to be ‘falsifiable in a higher degree’. This also means that the first theory says more about the world of experience than the second theory, for it rules out a larger class of basic statements. Although the class of permitted statements will thereby become smaller, this does not affect our argu- ment; for we have seen that the theory does not assert anything about this class. Thus it can be said that the amount of empirical information conveyed by a theory, or its empirical content, increases with its degree of falsifiability."
"We say that a theory is ‘corroborated’ so long as it stands up to these tests. The appraisal which asserts corroboration (the corroborative appraisal) establishes certain fundamental relations, viz. compatibility and incompatibility. We regard incompatibility as falsification of the theory. But compatibility alone must not make us attribute to the the- ory a positive degree of corroboration: the mere fact that a theory h
Here, maybe this quote will help you:
"With the help of other statements, previously accepted, certain singular statements— which we may call ‘predictions’—are deduced from the theory; especially predictions that are easily testable or applicable.
* From among these statements, those are selected which are not derivable from the current theory, and more especially those which the current theory contradicts. "
Your specific problem, in terms of the quote provided, is that your predictions are derivable from more than simply AGW/CAGW hypotheses. If you cannot exclude observations that could be explained through natural, non-athropogenic mechanisms and feedbacks, you've done nothing to satisfy Popper's deductive testing of theories. I have paraphrased this into a demand that logically asserts that our deductions from a hypothesis, must logically make us conclude only our proposed hypothesis is true.
Your citation actually backs me up: "For the sophisticated falsificationist a theory is "acceptable" or "scientific" only if it has corroborated excess empirical content over its predecessor (or rival), that is, only if it leads to the discovery of novel facts."
There is nothing novel about CO2 being a greenhouse gas, and nothing about CO2 being a greenhouse gas that excludes natural climate change as the reason for observed temperature increases since the little ice age. All of your assertions of potential falsifications *fail* - with the possible exception of low climate sensitivity, which you've been completely unable to defend.
So, let's see, going on twenty-five posts now, still waiting for answers to the questions:
What specific measure of climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 would you consider a falsification of AGW and CAGW?
What argument do you have to exclude a small increase in climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 from your initial falsification criteria?
The fact that your critiques of me continue to fail to include any sort of answer to the question is very telling, don't you think? :)
I've paraphrased Popper, and you've refused to accept it. I've provided the complete Popper work, and you've refused to read it, or been unable to understand it. You don't believe that I'm accurately paraphrasing Popper, but still can't seem to make the logical argument that any of your specific falsification observations are anything but trivial falsifications that are not sufficient to make for a falsifiable hypothesis.
Are you really going to make the argument that observing CO2 not being a greenhouse gas is a sufficient specification of falsification criteria for AGW/CAGW as to be considered non-trivial? Really? Your best opportunity to defend your point of view is on the idea of climate sensitivity, but you feign offense as an excuse not to answer :) It's as transparent as any juvenile attempt to change the subject :)
So, let's see, going on twenty-four posts now, still waiting for answers to the questions:
What specific measure of climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 would you consider a falsification of AGW and CAGW?
What argument do you have to exclude a small increase in climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 from your initial falsification criteria?
The fact that your critiques of me continue to fail to include any sort of answer to the question is very telling, don't you think? :)
That is what I said, simply put in a way that you apparently didn't understand.
You do realize that I'm simply explaining to you the difference between a trivial falsification and a non-trivial falsification, right?
So, let's see, going on twenty-three posts now, still waiting for answers to the questions:
What specific measure of climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 would you consider a falsification of AGW and CAGW?
What argument do you have to exclude a small increase in climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 from your initial falsification criteria?
The fact that your critiques of me continue to fail to include any sort of answer to the question is very telling, don't you think? :)
You're again misunderstanding Popper's intent. The necessity of falsifiability is not satisfied simply by a trivial falsification - it must be more than that, and he explains himself in quite a bit of detail. The gist of it is, you need a logical argument for why the lack of falsification observations excludes all other explanation besides your hypothesis. That's a summary of his point, that apparently you can't see in the details itself.
So, let's see, going on twenty-two posts now, still waiting for answers to the questions:
What specific measure of climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 would you consider a falsification of AGW and CAGW?
What argument do you have to exclude a small increase in climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 from your initial falsification criteria?
The fact that your critiques of me continue to fail to include any sort of answer to the question is very telling, don't you think? :)
I'm sorry you can't figure out what Popper meant based on his words. Yes, I've paraphrased him, and you won't find an exact quote. If you actually *read* his book, it should be obvious that sufficiency is required - you cannot possibly assert that you've made a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for a single proposition if it cannot exclude other hypotheses.
So, let's see, going on twenty-one posts now, still waiting for answers to the questions:
What specific measure of climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 would you consider a falsification of AGW and CAGW?
What argument do you have to exclude a small increase in climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 from your initial falsification criteria?
The fact that your critiques of me continue to fail to include any sort of answer to the question is very telling, don't you think? :)
"Besides being consistent, an empirical system should satisfy a fur- ther condition: it must be falsifiable. The two conditions are to a large extent analogous.1 Statements which do not satisfy the condition of consistency fail to differentiate between any two statements within the totality of all possible statements. Statements which do not satisfy the condition of falsifiability fail to differentiate between any two statements within the totality of all possible empirical basic statements."
Again, you've failed to understand that a proposed set of falsifications that cannot discern between two different hypotheses. Another section from Popper:
"An example of an auxiliary hypothesis which is eminently acceptable in this sense is Pauli’s exclu- sion principle (cf. section 38). An example of an unsatisfactory aux- iliary hypothesis would be the contraction hypothesis of Fitzgerald and Lorentz which had no falsifiable consequences but merely*1 served to restore the agreement between theory and experiment—mainly the findings of Michelson and Morley."
So, let's see, going on twenty posts now, still waiting for answers to the questions:
What specific measure of climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 would you consider a falsification of AGW and CAGW?
What argument do you have to exclude a small increase in climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 from your initial falsification criteria?
The fact that your critiques of me continue to fail to include any sort of answer to the question is very telling, don't you think? :)
Do you need me to post the entire chapter for you? Have you failed to understand what he says about the requirement of sufficiency?
Put another way, do you imagine that having a set of falsification observations, that if not observed, could support multiple hypotheses, is enough to discern between them?
You can state that an orange weighs half a pound, and if the object you weigh is not half a pound, then it is not an orange - but you haven't done anything to show that "all things that weigh half a pound are oranges" - your falsification criteria must *exclude* other explanations (like a half-pound hamburger).
So, let's see, going on nineteen posts now, still waiting for answers to the questions:
What specific measure of climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 would you consider a falsification of AGW and CAGW?
What argument do you have to exclude a small increase in climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 from your initial falsification criteria?
The fact that your critiques of me continue to fail to include any sort of answer to the question is very telling, don't you think? :)
Sure it does - continue reading chapter 4 where the quote starts. Let me know where you get lost.
So, let's see, going on eighteen posts now, still waiting for answers to the questions:
What specific measure of climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 would you consider a falsification of AGW and CAGW?
What argument do you have to exclude a small increase in climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 from your initial falsification criteria?
The fact that your critiques of me continue to fail to include any sort of answer to the question is very telling, don't you think? :)
http://strangebeautiful.com/ot...
I highly suggest reading the entire thing. But here's the question of necessary and sufficient (intro para, there's more following):
"We say that a theory is falsified only if we have accepted basic state- ments which contradict it (cf. section 11, rule 2). This condition is necessary, but not sufficient; for we have seen that non-reproducible single occurrences are of no significance to science. Thus a few stray basic statements contradicting a theory will hardly induce us to reject it as falsified. We shall take it as falsified only if we discover a reproducible effect which refutes the theory. In other words, we only accept the falsification if a low-level empirical hypothesis which describes such an effect is proposed and corroborated."
So, let's see, going on seventeen posts now, still waiting for answers to the questions:
What specific measure of climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 would you consider a falsification of AGW and CAGW?
What argument do you have to exclude a small increase in climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 from your initial falsification criteria?
The fact that your critiques of me continue to fail to include any sort of answer to the question is very telling, don't you think? :)
What don't you understand about the idea of a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis? If your falsification criteria could be used to support multiple hypotheses, how would you discern which one is true? Don't you understand the need to be specific to your favored hypothesis?
The whole *point* of Karl Popper's explanation of this basic principle of the scientific method is to derive knowledge from *exclusion* - is there some reason why he's confused you? Start here:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org...
So, let's see, going on sixteen posts now, still waiting for answers to the questions:
What specific measure of climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 would you consider a falsification of AGW and CAGW?
What argument do you have to exclude a small increase in climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 from your initial falsification criteria?
The fact that your critiques of me continue to fail to include any sort of answer to the question is very telling, don't you think? :)
The idea of a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement is fundamental to the scientific method from its inception, but most eloquently spoken of by Karl Popper. I assume you've heard of him, but my guess is you haven't actually *read* him. I highly recommend both his books and papers.
So, let's see, going on fifteen posts now, still waiting for answers to the questions:
What specific measure of climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 would you consider a falsification of AGW and CAGW?
What argument do you have to exclude a small increase in climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 from your initial falsification criteria?
The fact that your critiques of me continue to fail to include any sort of answer to the question is very telling, don't you think? :)
Lacking an explicit answer, let's be clear that implicitly you're saying that there is no climate sensitivity that would falsify your belief system, and that even if there were you'd have no cogent argument as to why it was set there. I'm totally cool with that, since your continued lack of answer simply strengthens my case, but I thought I'd be very clear as to how you're damaging your proposition in this debate :)
Sure they can be.
#2 listed does not specify whether things are observed or not, it simply demands that there is a logical argument that if they are *not* observed, then the only conclusion is AGW/CAGW.
I'm not making a pre-judgement on whether or not these observations will happen or not, but the sufficient set of falsification criteria must exist, and must have a logical argument for why their absence at the very least implies AGW/CAGW over all other explanations.
What part about this exercise aren't you understanding? Do you think I'm insisting that specified observations must *exist* and already be observed? I'm simply asking for these *possible* observations to be *specified*, so that if we *do* see them, we recognize them.
For example, "all swans are white". Falsified by the observation of a single black swan. We may never see a single black swan - that's an open question.
Or, "life only exists on earth". Falsified by the observation of a single life form anywhere else in the universe. We may never see extraterrestrial life - it's an open question.
So, AGW/CAGW. Falsified by [necessary] [sufficient] observations. We may never see those observations - it's an open question.
You still don't understand - I'm not looking for something to prove AGW is true. I'm looking for you to show me a set of observations that will do two things:
1) if they are observed, then AGW/CAGW is falsified; (necessary)
2) if they are not observed, then the *only* logical conclusion is AGW/CAGW. (sufficient)
You've done a bang up job of noting a few things in part 1, but you've been unable to defend part 2.
So, let's see, going on fourteen posts now, still waiting for answers to the questions:
What specific measure of climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 would you consider a falsification of AGW and CAGW?
What argument do you have to exclude a small increase in climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 from your initial falsification criteria?
The fact that your critiques of me continue to fail to include any sort of answer to the question is very telling, don't you think? :)
Ah, I see your misunderstanding.
I'm not asking you to defend the *truth* of AGW or CAGW - I'm asking you to defend the *falsifiability* of it. Specifically, you need to show a [P,R...Z] exists such that it is a "necessary and sufficient" falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW or CAGW.
Yes, but those are only *necessary*, not *necessary and sufficient*. Follow along with me:
1) CO2 is not a greenhouse gas
The fact that any specific gas is a greenhouse gas does not make AGW or CAGW true. While this is *necessary*, clearly, it is not sufficient to simply declare the radiative properties of a greenhouse gas. It is not only possible, but likely that CO2 is a greenhouse gas primarily driven by atmospheric temperature, rather than the other way around.
So, not *sufficient*.
2) The warming is due to the sun
This is simply shifting the burden of proof. Even if this falsification is *not* observed, it does not mean that the only remaining cause of warming is CO2. Natural causes of climate change span more than the sun. Of course, trivially, the observed warming must not have some other genesis, but simply excluding one genesis does not exclude all but your preferred.
So, *necessary* but not *necessary and sufficient*.
3) The CO2 is natural
Again, *necessary* (since if it's not CO2 from humans, you get rid of the A), but not *sufficient*, since it's quite possible that humans add CO2 to the atmosphere, but it does not measurably affect atmospheric temperatures.
So, *necessary* but not *necessary and sufficient*.
Do *you* understand? Can you admit that while you have found trivial, *necessary* components for AGW and CAGW to be true, until you have the list include enough criteria to be *sufficient*, and exclude all other competing explanations (including the null hypothesis of any form of natural variation), you've failed your task.
Astrology can be falsified by:
1) there not being stars;
2) stars not having gravity;
3) there not being an earth;
4) there not being people.
All of these are arguably falsifications because astrology *must* have the opposite to be true - there *must* be stars, they *must* have gravity, there *must* be an earth and there *must* be people for Astrology to work. But listing out all the "musts" (i.e., *necessary* factors) is not necessarily listing out enough criteria to be *sufficient*.
Can you grok the difference?
Now, you missed one item - the low climate sensitivity, arguably your strongest argument.
So, let's see, going on thirteen posts now, still waiting for answers to the questions:
What specific measure of climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 would you consider a falsification of AGW and CAGW?
What argument do you have to exclude a small increase in climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 from your initial falsification criteria?
The fact that your critiques of me continue to fail to include any sort of answer to the question is very telling, don't you think? :)
Logic lesson for you:
You have options of [P,R..Z] - you must show that at *least* one of those is a "necessary and sufficient" falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW or CAGW.
Thus far, you have been unable to defend *anything* between [P,R...Z]. You've made 4 propositions for values of [P,R...Z], and you've been unable to defend the strongest one. You haven't been able to defend any of the weaker ones either.
So, you can argue this two ways:
1) successfully defend *any* of your propositions;
2) insist that even if all of your propositions are indefensible, that somewhere, out there, some unspecified proposition will in fact be defensible, and on that basis we should accept the truth of Q.
Can you guess what logical fallacy #2 is? :)
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ig...
I see your misunderstanding. Well, two possible misunderstandings.
1) You've stated Q = Q (i.e., proposition Q is true if Q is true) - obviously an error on your part, but you should be aware.
2) Of [P, R...Z], your strongest argument is P (i.e., low climate sensitivity). Consider picking that one as a favor to you :)
3) You have been unable to defend P at all, and given that it is your strongest argument, it's unlikely that any of the others will stand.
But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about "does CAGW have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement?" Leave for the moment whether or not the hypothesis is true aside - the question is do you have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
We've taken your Q = [P,R...Z] argument, found your strongest candidate, and you've been unable to defend it.
Here - *you* pick what you think your strongest argument is :) Go ahead, pick your strongest one, and we'll hit that first :)
Oh, what's that you say? The whole game is to avoid answering questions about your arguments, so you decline to pick one? :)
So, let's see, going on twelve posts now, still waiting for answers to the questions:
What specific measure of climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 would you consider a falsification of AGW and CAGW?
What argument do you have to exclude a small increase in climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 from your initial falsification criteria?
The fact that your continued critiques of me fail to include any sort of answer to the question is very telling, don't you think? :)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
Interesting to note that the CMPI5 models are all over the map when it comes to climate sensitivity.
At what point is AGW and CAGW falsified? 1.5C/doubling? 1.6C/doubling?
A syntax error? :)
At the most generous, an egregious misunderstanding of what I said occurred. Most likely, however, the misunderstanding was malicious and intentional, and simply a tactic to "score a point" as it were in some imaginary game being played in microbox's head :)
So, let's see, going on eleven posts now, still waiting for answers to the questions:
What specific measure of climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 would you consider a falsification of AGW and CAGW?
What argument do you have to exclude a small increase in climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 from your initial falsification criteria?
The fact that your critique of me failed to include any sort of answer to the question is very telling, don't you think? :)
No, I agree that you claimed that :) You haven't shown that at all, and given the fact that you can't even make the argument for a specific "low climate sensitivity", I doubt you'll be able to show it at all :)
I honed in on the first thing on your list - there is no "larger argument" if you can't defend it's pieces :)
I will promise to do so once you agree that you have not shown that either AGW or CAGW have necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statements, and gracefully concede that you have no defense for any specification of "low climate sensitivity" or argument for why it should be set in any particular place :)
Heck, I've already done most of what you've asked - your strongest argument was the "low climate sensitivity", and I've restricted myself to that for quite a while now :)
Here, let me reprint your list of four points, in order:
* climate sensitivity is low,
This is probably your best angle.
* CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas
Too obviously insufficient, since the radiative properties of a molecule don't automatically lead to some strong overarching AGW or CAGW.
* humans didn't put it there,
Another weak one, since the isotope ratios don't really show what you think it shows.
* there are negative feedbacks
To obviously already observed - once you admit this is a falsification, you've already falsified your theory!
So, let's see, going on ten posts now, let's see if you can answer the questions:
What specific measure of climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 would you consider a falsification of AGW and CAGW?
What argument do you have to exclude a small increase in climate sensitivity in degrees C/doubling of CO2 from your initial falsification criteria?