The double helix, the higgs model, and even our atomic picture of matter have very specific, necessary, and sufficient falsification criteria.
Intelligent design and catastrophic anthropogenic global warming do not.
Now, you're correct, science often starts simply as inspiration from unconnected observations, but it cannot proceed without falsifiability. Thus far, no warmist has ever presented any sort of falsification criteria whose absence can only mean that human CO2 emissions have been the cause of recent warming, and that this warming will be catastrophic at a given point in the future.
Like any good scientist, I've presented you with a falsifiable hypothesis - simply quote someone's necessary and sufficient falsification criteria, and I'll be proven wrong.
So your excuse for not listing specific authorities is that you wouldn't know where to start, and the list would be larger than human capacity to enumerate?
Really?
Astrology charts would take man-centuries to recreate...do you consider astrology science?
Look, if you want to outsource your rational thought processes to specific authorities you can't even *start* to enumerate, well, I suppose you have no quarrel with someone who has a hard time picking a favorite patron saint out of the catholic church:)
The thing I most notice is when the temperature is below the co2 line the sunspots are also low.
You sound like you're reading an astrological chart:)
For temperature driving CO2 I would point out a chemical reaction Nitrogen dioxide and Dinitrogen tetroxide. Those two gases are in equilibrium. If you change the concentration of one the other will follow. Proving A follows B does not disprove B follows A.
So you're asserting that CO2 and temperature follow each other? Isn't that trivially falsified by any observation of CO2 going down and temp going up, or vice versa?
If you want to imagine this in terms of chemistry, have you ever considered perhaps the ocean, as a CO2 source and sink, mediates the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere based on its temperature, regardless of other sources and sinks of CO2? Imagine a buffer solution, as it were, that will neutralize both bases and acids...food for thought.
Well, by fairly simple calculation, it should happen once on a fair dice in 1679616 trials, so you would never have a dice fairness model that said "if you find eight rolls of one in a row in 1679616 trials, I'm falsified". You'd state falsification criteria like "if you find 9 rolls of one in a row for 1679616 trials, I'm falsified", or "if you find two instances of eight rolls of one in a row in 1679616 trials, I'm falsified."
NOAA 2008 didn't say, "if you find 15 years of stagnant temperatures with rising CO2, only once in a million years, I'm falsified".
If you were trying to prove a dice had six sides, and only once out of 1,679,616 trials, you got a 7, does the dice have six sides?
Funny, your graph shows no CO2 effect at all, and a relationship with sunspots that flips from in sync to out of sync.
I guess the other question you've also got to answer, is what if, as per our ice core records, temperature actually drives CO2 rather than the other way around?
The fact of the matter is this - the closest to a statement of falsification I've ever seen is 2008 NOAA:
"The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”"
As with any falsification, it is *asking* you to find a cherry pick that proves the whole shebang wrong (if you're proving that all swans are white, you can't claim that someone's black swan to disprove you is a "cherry pick").
Now, the defense of this can be ad hoc special pleading ("oh we were wrong about this small fudge factor, and it all works out when we add it in"), or misdirection ("yeah, but all these other 15 year trends match! Look at the millions of white swans!"), but neither of them are persuasive arguments.
Here's the challenge to you - what observations, of CO2, sunspots, temperature, and whatever else you'd like, would cause you to abandon your central conceit? Are you reading tea leaves, or are you doing science?
Omg, you're going to cherry pick *four* points, and try and deny that CO2 continues to rise while temperatures have had no statistically significant warming?:)
Proof: Look at all of those successful nations run on Libertarian principles.
Well, Bastiat believed that the shining example of that was the US in the 1800s (slavery being the one particular violation of that ideal), and we ended up on the top of the heap...whether or not we can keep that exalted position, given the general tendency of statists, is an open question, but if you wanted to compare and contrast say, individual states on libertarian principles, I think the comparison likely bodes well for libertarian principles. The problem always ends up that the liberal wing wants to play nanny state, and the religious right wing always wants to poke into people's bedrooms - both are trying to legislate morality of a sort, even though they're diametrically opposed.
I'd argue overregulation happens because there is no accountability of government bureaucrats. It's a symptom of checks and balances gone awry, with say, an executive branch that arbitrarily modifies legislation by fiat, a congress afraid to hold that executive accountable, and a judiciary unwilling to rein in that power.
There's some hope, to be sure, but because human nature these days just isn't that hot, and government bureaucrats are always humans, I'd prefer to keep their powers to the bare minimum.
Boy, you've got just one sarcasm spewing level, "tsunami", don't you?:)
And frankly, it's a typical defense when you've got no real argument to make - unable to reconcile the fact that science requires falsifiability, and that the CAGW hypothesis lacks falsifiability, with your deep seated belief that CAGW must be science because people in lab coats told you so...I can totally get why that would send one running to the warm, safe Fortress of Sarcasm:)
But you know what, at least your defense is humor - that's a good start! By showing an ability to make a joke, you've already shown more mental flexibility than 99.99% of your typical warmist foot soldiers:) It might take another 10 years of stagnant temperatures and rising CO2 levels to convince you, but there's at least *hope* in your case.
In the meantime, I know that itch in the back of your mind still lingers, "where, or where, is the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of CAGW?":)
How did they get all the climatologists to think they're doing science when they're not, and to come to the consensus that AGW is real?
I'd argue two points - one, the odd need for some humans to have *some* sort of faith, when raised as rational atheists, end up replacing it with something else apocalyptic...in this case the CAGW fraud.
Second, as you point out, money. Money money money. The amount of money that has been poured down the drain of big wind and big solar, and all the rent seekers out there is *phenomenal*. Want to talk about billions of propaganda pushing the CAGW line? A wave that big is going to chum up the waters pretty fierce...it certainly seems to have gotten you on board:)
But the real question is this - not whether or not a specific climatologist is an idiot, but whether or not you're going to be the kind of person that outsources their thinking to someone else. Blindly trusting men in lab coats is as silly as blindly trusting men in priestly robes - they're both an abdication of the responsibility to think for oneself...which, the scientific method, and its foundational premise of falsifiability, allows us to do for ourselves.
So do yourself a favor, and figure it out on your own without my help:) Look for the falsifiable hypothesis statement of CAGW. Look *real* hard. If after a significant effort in this fruitless search you find nothing, perhaps you'll have actually learned something:)
"In general relativity, this remaining precession, or change of orientation of the orbital ellipse within its orbital plane, is explained by gravitation being mediated by the curvature of spacetime. Einstein showed that general relativity[1] agrees closely with the observed amount of perihelion shift."
Furthermore, pay attention to just how *small* the difference was:
"His re-analysis of available timed observations of transits of Mercury over the Sun's disk from 1697 to 1848 showed that the actual rate of the precession disagreed from that predicted from Newton's theory by 38" (arc seconds) per tropical century (later re-estimated at 43").[3]"
Climate scientists would *love* to have that kind of error bar:)
The fact of the matter is that the gravity hypothesis has a falsification - a climate scientist looking at 38 arc seconds of divergence from prediction would've simply claimed that it was within error bars, or they would've hard coded in a ad hoc special pleading to their model to account for it.
But hey, you live in a world where science only requires lab coats, vice presidents, and movie stars, right?:)
That does falsify some weak hypothesis of AGW, such as monotonically increasing temperatures.
So...you're asserting some more complex hypothesis of AGW that is hind cast onto observations by tweaking hard coded parameters? Isn't that curve fitting just an extended ad hoc special pleading?
Come up with *any* set of observations that you believe would falsify your central conceit - use as many variables as you'd like, but be sure to enumerate them, and of course, don't forget, connect the logical dots such that in the *absence* of such observations, the only explanation left is your favored belief.
The continual appeal to unnamed authorities, unspecified hypothesis statements, and general claims of doom make the Cult of Global Warming more obvious by the day:)
I'd go with something more radical - appoint people to political office by lottery, and have people serve one term and then out.
The problem I have with public funding of elections is that it simply isn't realistic - how do you allocate public funding when say, 1 million citizens want to run for the office of Governor of California? You may change the point at which money is influential, but it still will be.
Children (and by children I don't mean teens but kids under 12 years old) shouldn't be working. They should be in school getting an education.
I respectfully disagree. Not only is working at a young age good practice, but you can't treat all children as some monolithic demographic - different children have different needs, and some of those children simply aren't cut out for schooling much past basic numeracy and literacy (and some not even for that). If you've got some retarded kid who is never going to do more than bag groceries and do manual labor their entire life, why waste their time in an academic environment? Wither thou vocational schools?
As I mentioned before, I can certainly see some basic limitations on hours, and I could even see some of that based on age (or height/weight, or some other standard), but child labor laws have gone way past the reasonable stage. Case in point:
If CO2 and temperature aren't sufficient, please, add as many variables as you like, and clearly state what observations would cause you to question your belief.
My bet is that you can't even *enumerate* all the factors, forcings, sensitivities, or emergent phenomena that affect the earth's temperature, but if you'd like to bear that burden, please feel free - state your falsifiable hypothesis as complexly as you require.
Okay, Newton's law of universal gravitation states that every point mass in the universe attracts every other point mass with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
This statement is clearly falsifiable - all we have to do is find two point masses (say, two planets for sake of argument), and show that their pattern of motion violates this law.
The "if the surface temperature gets warmer or if the surface temperature gets colder, catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is real" has no falsification, on the other hand.
It is clearly the duty of anyone who wishes to learn scientifically to insist on a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for any significant proposition.
So my necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement is "there is no necessary and sufficient falsifiable statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming". You can falsify me simply by quoting directly some expert's necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of CAGW.
Minimum wage laws and limits on worker hours or child labor?
I'm probably for the limits on worker hours, but minimum wage laws and child labor laws are economically destructive in the ways they've been implemented. Minimum wage only serves to destroy employment, and the lack of employment opportunities for children who are not cut out for academia means they spend years penned up in ersatz schools that are really just extended babysitting facilities.
I'll again go back to Clinton and his abortion quip, government should be safe, legal and rare.
You're basically saying that we should obliterate science as a creative endeavor.
I'm not for denying creativity - but calling astrology science doesn't do anyone any favors. The creativity of science lies in the novel creation of insightful necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statements. The creativity of say, using a shotgun approach to discovering new material syntheses, or exploring the bottom of the ocean can be an implementation of science, but simply because alvin may be loosely related to necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypotheses of geology doesn't mean that taking a robot submersible out and making videos is "science".
Science is science. Science requires falsifiability. It's really that simple, despite all the complexity that such a simple statement generates.
When creationists say that evolution cannot be falsified...
...they're lying. Find a modern rabbit fossil in the pre-cambrian, done.
There are numerous way to falsify the AGW hypothesis
Really? Name any observation of CO2 and temperature that would falsify it. Perhaps 17 years of ever increasing CO2, but no statistically significant warming?
Go ahead, state your falsifiable hypothesis...or continue hand waving if you prefer:)
Wait, are you saying you deny the last 17 years of no statistically significant warming? (GW)
Or are you saying you deny the last 150 years of natural warming coming out of the little ice age? (AGW)
Or are you saying that AGW is true, but we don't need to worry about it, because on the whole increased temperatures are better for the biosphere? (CAGW)
What part of "climate always changes" don't you understand?
When almost everything fits together consistently within the framework of a broadly accepted model, then the outliers are quite likely to be errors, or possibly things which we simply do not yet understand well enough to see how they fit within the model.
The same can be said about astrology.
A "consistent with" model isn't science - hell, the bible gives us plenty of "consistent with" observations...the key to science is falsifiability, period.
If your model predicts that a coin flip will be either heads or tails, 100% of the time, it's not much of a model. Heads I win, tails you lose is a sucker bet, not a scientific proposition.
Put another way, can you name or cite any catastrophic AGW studies that ever stated a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement? Can you quote that statement?
People who claim the earth is 10k years old have no necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement. Any observation can be explained by their hypothesis - up, down, left, right, more, less, black, white, they're all simply consistent with their hypothesis.
People who claim that anthropogenic CO2 emissions will cause catastrophic climate change at some unknown point in the future (but soon!), have no necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement. Any observation can be explained by their hypothesis - up, down, left, right, more, less, black, white, they're all simply consistent with their hypothesis.
Recognizing the similarity between these claims is left as an exercise for the reader:)
Slashdot Mirror
The double helix, the higgs model, and even our atomic picture of matter have very specific, necessary, and sufficient falsification criteria.
Intelligent design and catastrophic anthropogenic global warming do not.
Now, you're correct, science often starts simply as inspiration from unconnected observations, but it cannot proceed without falsifiability. Thus far, no warmist has ever presented any sort of falsification criteria whose absence can only mean that human CO2 emissions have been the cause of recent warming, and that this warming will be catastrophic at a given point in the future.
Like any good scientist, I've presented you with a falsifiable hypothesis - simply quote someone's necessary and sufficient falsification criteria, and I'll be proven wrong.
Good luck! :)
So your excuse for not listing specific authorities is that you wouldn't know where to start, and the list would be larger than human capacity to enumerate?
Really?
Astrology charts would take man-centuries to recreate...do you consider astrology science?
Look, if you want to outsource your rational thought processes to specific authorities you can't even *start* to enumerate, well, I suppose you have no quarrel with someone who has a hard time picking a favorite patron saint out of the catholic church :)
Government should be safe, legal, and rare. Decisions should be made by individuals whenever possible and practicable, not representative bodies.
If you limit the scope of government, you maximize the freedom of individuals.
You sound like you're reading an astrological chart :)
So you're asserting that CO2 and temperature follow each other? Isn't that trivially falsified by any observation of CO2 going down and temp going up, or vice versa?
If you want to imagine this in terms of chemistry, have you ever considered perhaps the ocean, as a CO2 source and sink, mediates the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere based on its temperature, regardless of other sources and sinks of CO2? Imagine a buffer solution, as it were, that will neutralize both bases and acids...food for thought.
Well, by fairly simple calculation, it should happen once on a fair dice in 1679616 trials, so you would never have a dice fairness model that said "if you find eight rolls of one in a row in 1679616 trials, I'm falsified". You'd state falsification criteria like "if you find 9 rolls of one in a row for 1679616 trials, I'm falsified", or "if you find two instances of eight rolls of one in a row in 1679616 trials, I'm falsified."
NOAA 2008 didn't say, "if you find 15 years of stagnant temperatures with rising CO2, only once in a million years, I'm falsified".
If you were trying to prove a dice had six sides, and only once out of 1,679,616 trials, you got a 7, does the dice have six sides?
Funny, your graph shows no CO2 effect at all, and a relationship with sunspots that flips from in sync to out of sync.
I guess the other question you've also got to answer, is what if, as per our ice core records, temperature actually drives CO2 rather than the other way around?
The fact of the matter is this - the closest to a statement of falsification I've ever seen is 2008 NOAA:
"The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”"
As with any falsification, it is *asking* you to find a cherry pick that proves the whole shebang wrong (if you're proving that all swans are white, you can't claim that someone's black swan to disprove you is a "cherry pick").
Now, the defense of this can be ad hoc special pleading ("oh we were wrong about this small fudge factor, and it all works out when we add it in"), or misdirection ("yeah, but all these other 15 year trends match! Look at the millions of white swans!"), but neither of them are persuasive arguments.
Here's the challenge to you - what observations, of CO2, sunspots, temperature, and whatever else you'd like, would cause you to abandon your central conceit? Are you reading tea leaves, or are you doing science?
Omg, you're going to cherry pick *four* points, and try and deny that CO2 continues to rise while temperatures have had no statistically significant warming? :)
Try looking at all the data:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1995/to:2013/plot/esrl-co2/from:1995/to:2013/normalise
Nice try :)
Well, Bastiat believed that the shining example of that was the US in the 1800s (slavery being the one particular violation of that ideal), and we ended up on the top of the heap...whether or not we can keep that exalted position, given the general tendency of statists, is an open question, but if you wanted to compare and contrast say, individual states on libertarian principles, I think the comparison likely bodes well for libertarian principles. The problem always ends up that the liberal wing wants to play nanny state, and the religious right wing always wants to poke into people's bedrooms - both are trying to legislate morality of a sort, even though they're diametrically opposed.
I'd argue overregulation happens because there is no accountability of government bureaucrats. It's a symptom of checks and balances gone awry, with say, an executive branch that arbitrarily modifies legislation by fiat, a congress afraid to hold that executive accountable, and a judiciary unwilling to rein in that power.
There's some hope, to be sure, but because human nature these days just isn't that hot, and government bureaucrats are always humans, I'd prefer to keep their powers to the bare minimum.
Boy, you've got just one sarcasm spewing level, "tsunami", don't you? :)
And frankly, it's a typical defense when you've got no real argument to make - unable to reconcile the fact that science requires falsifiability, and that the CAGW hypothesis lacks falsifiability, with your deep seated belief that CAGW must be science because people in lab coats told you so...I can totally get why that would send one running to the warm, safe Fortress of Sarcasm :)
But you know what, at least your defense is humor - that's a good start! By showing an ability to make a joke, you've already shown more mental flexibility than 99.99% of your typical warmist foot soldiers :) It might take another 10 years of stagnant temperatures and rising CO2 levels to convince you, but there's at least *hope* in your case.
In the meantime, I know that itch in the back of your mind still lingers, "where, or where, is the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of CAGW?" :)
I'd argue two points - one, the odd need for some humans to have *some* sort of faith, when raised as rational atheists, end up replacing it with something else apocalyptic...in this case the CAGW fraud.
Second, as you point out, money. Money money money. The amount of money that has been poured down the drain of big wind and big solar, and all the rent seekers out there is *phenomenal*. Want to talk about billions of propaganda pushing the CAGW line? A wave that big is going to chum up the waters pretty fierce...it certainly seems to have gotten you on board :)
But the real question is this - not whether or not a specific climatologist is an idiot, but whether or not you're going to be the kind of person that outsources their thinking to someone else. Blindly trusting men in lab coats is as silly as blindly trusting men in priestly robes - they're both an abdication of the responsibility to think for oneself...which, the scientific method, and its foundational premise of falsifiability, allows us to do for ourselves.
So do yourself a favor, and figure it out on your own without my help :) Look for the falsifiable hypothesis statement of CAGW. Look *real* hard. If after a significant effort in this fruitless search you find nothing, perhaps you'll have actually learned something :)
Um, no - you've misunderstanding the cite you're trying to make. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
"In general relativity, this remaining precession, or change of orientation of the orbital ellipse within its orbital plane, is explained by gravitation being mediated by the curvature of spacetime. Einstein showed that general relativity[1] agrees closely with the observed amount of perihelion shift."
Furthermore, pay attention to just how *small* the difference was:
"His re-analysis of available timed observations of transits of Mercury over the Sun's disk from 1697 to 1848 showed that the actual rate of the precession disagreed from that predicted from Newton's theory by 38" (arc seconds) per tropical century (later re-estimated at 43").[3]"
Climate scientists would *love* to have that kind of error bar :)
The fact of the matter is that the gravity hypothesis has a falsification - a climate scientist looking at 38 arc seconds of divergence from prediction would've simply claimed that it was within error bars, or they would've hard coded in a ad hoc special pleading to their model to account for it.
But hey, you live in a world where science only requires lab coats, vice presidents, and movie stars, right? :)
There is not a single necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement in any of the IPCC reports.
If you disagree, please quote it, chapter and page. /crickets
So...you're asserting some more complex hypothesis of AGW that is hind cast onto observations by tweaking hard coded parameters? Isn't that curve fitting just an extended ad hoc special pleading?
Come up with *any* set of observations that you believe would falsify your central conceit - use as many variables as you'd like, but be sure to enumerate them, and of course, don't forget, connect the logical dots such that in the *absence* of such observations, the only explanation left is your favored belief.
The continual appeal to unnamed authorities, unspecified hypothesis statements, and general claims of doom make the Cult of Global Warming more obvious by the day :)
I'd go with something more radical - appoint people to political office by lottery, and have people serve one term and then out.
The problem I have with public funding of elections is that it simply isn't realistic - how do you allocate public funding when say, 1 million citizens want to run for the office of Governor of California? You may change the point at which money is influential, but it still will be.
I respectfully disagree. Not only is working at a young age good practice, but you can't treat all children as some monolithic demographic - different children have different needs, and some of those children simply aren't cut out for schooling much past basic numeracy and literacy (and some not even for that). If you've got some retarded kid who is never going to do more than bag groceries and do manual labor their entire life, why waste their time in an academic environment? Wither thou vocational schools?
As I mentioned before, I can certainly see some basic limitations on hours, and I could even see some of that based on age (or height/weight, or some other standard), but child labor laws have gone way past the reasonable stage. Case in point:
http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2013/08/5-legal-issues-with-your-kids-lemonade-stand.html
If CO2 and temperature aren't sufficient, please, add as many variables as you like, and clearly state what observations would cause you to question your belief.
My bet is that you can't even *enumerate* all the factors, forcings, sensitivities, or emergent phenomena that affect the earth's temperature, but if you'd like to bear that burden, please feel free - state your falsifiable hypothesis as complexly as you require.
Okay, Newton's law of universal gravitation states that every point mass in the universe attracts every other point mass with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
This statement is clearly falsifiable - all we have to do is find two point masses (say, two planets for sake of argument), and show that their pattern of motion violates this law.
The "if the surface temperature gets warmer or if the surface temperature gets colder, catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is real" has no falsification, on the other hand.
It is clearly the duty of anyone who wishes to learn scientifically to insist on a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for any significant proposition.
So my necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement is "there is no necessary and sufficient falsifiable statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming". You can falsify me simply by quoting directly some expert's necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of CAGW.
Good luck! :)
I'm probably for the limits on worker hours, but minimum wage laws and child labor laws are economically destructive in the ways they've been implemented. Minimum wage only serves to destroy employment, and the lack of employment opportunities for children who are not cut out for academia means they spend years penned up in ersatz schools that are really just extended babysitting facilities.
I'll again go back to Clinton and his abortion quip, government should be safe, legal and rare.
So, you've now reduced your argument to an appeal to unnamed authorities :)
Sounds like religion to me :)
I'm not for denying creativity - but calling astrology science doesn't do anyone any favors. The creativity of science lies in the novel creation of insightful necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statements. The creativity of say, using a shotgun approach to discovering new material syntheses, or exploring the bottom of the ocean can be an implementation of science, but simply because alvin may be loosely related to necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypotheses of geology doesn't mean that taking a robot submersible out and making videos is "science".
Science is science. Science requires falsifiability. It's really that simple, despite all the complexity that such a simple statement generates.
Really? Name any observation of CO2 and temperature that would falsify it. Perhaps 17 years of ever increasing CO2, but no statistically significant warming?
Go ahead, state your falsifiable hypothesis...or continue hand waving if you prefer :)
Wait, are you saying you deny the last 17 years of no statistically significant warming? (GW)
Or are you saying you deny the last 150 years of natural warming coming out of the little ice age? (AGW)
Or are you saying that AGW is true, but we don't need to worry about it, because on the whole increased temperatures are better for the biosphere? (CAGW)
What part of "climate always changes" don't you understand?
The same can be said about astrology.
A "consistent with" model isn't science - hell, the bible gives us plenty of "consistent with" observations...the key to science is falsifiability, period.
If your model predicts that a coin flip will be either heads or tails, 100% of the time, it's not much of a model. Heads I win, tails you lose is a sucker bet, not a scientific proposition.
Put another way, can you name or cite any catastrophic AGW studies that ever stated a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement? Can you quote that statement?
Evolution (or more specifically, natural selection), and gravity have necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statements.
Astrology does not have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
Intelligent design does not have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
AGW does not have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
If you want to understand how to discern pseudo-science from science, look for the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
People who claim the earth is 10k years old have no necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement. Any observation can be explained by their hypothesis - up, down, left, right, more, less, black, white, they're all simply consistent with their hypothesis.
People who claim that anthropogenic CO2 emissions will cause catastrophic climate change at some unknown point in the future (but soon!), have no necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement. Any observation can be explained by their hypothesis - up, down, left, right, more, less, black, white, they're all simply consistent with their hypothesis.
Recognizing the similarity between these claims is left as an exercise for the reader :)