Actually, while some US affirmative action policies are quite flagrant, over the top wholesale discrimination, truth be told, they pale in comparison to India's Scheduled Castes and Classes.
Both countries have a lot of work to do before they've finally let go of the vestiges of racial and ethnic discrimination.
Or is that just a social phenomenon couched in men's ability to cause more destruction through superior physical strength?
Well, we're talking about large population groups and tendencies, and if it's simply "superior physical strength", and the Y chromosome is correlated with superior physical strength, you've found your biomarker. Yes, you can have weak men, but you can certainly have non-violent people with "violence biomarkers" in the same way you can have non-cancer-ridden people with "cancer biomarkers".
Btw, do you have a cite for the studies you mention about "gender symmetry"? Domestic violence, as a subset of violence, may or may not be indicative of overall violence.
...why not just issue a CCW with every smartphone purchased, under the condition that the purchaser passes the required training and background checks?
If thieves knew that smartphone owners might be armed and dangerous, they just might stop thieving.
You make a good point - science by press release is notorious for turning the most dull and meaningless paper into something exciting and eye catching. Sadly, both the press and the scientists involved are often complicit in the hyping of data in order to garner attention and ultimately funding, either in terms of grants or advertising.
As for supporting any conclusion, they could also have said that health improves trees - their choice of *which* implication to highlight (though neither is proven) is an explicit bias on their part that is both misleading and improper.
The hypothesis posited wasn't one of correlation. From TFA:
"'Well my basic hypothesis was that trees improve people's health"
That's a hypothesis of causality. Trees *cause* an improvement in people's health.
While finding no correlation may be good enough to exclude that hypothesis, finding correlation is *not* sufficient to lead us to believe in his preferred causality direction.
There are three primary options we must consider when looking at causality within a correlation -> A causes B, B causes A, or C causes A and B.
In order to do science one must have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement that excludes the two options past A causes B.
which revealed immediately that the paper does not falsify any model let alone the imaginary model
Sure it does. Search for "rule out". It rules out what has already been observed at the 95% confidence level...are you really going to claim that you still have a 5% chance of being right in the Bayesian sense?:)
Secondly, by mistaking the reference to a paper as a reference to a model.
Surely you understood the context to mean NOAA 2008 was referring to the model HADcm3. Or then again, maybe you didn't understand it, since you obviously never read NOAA 2008:)
. I'll offer you a choice - you can retire hurt now, and I'll speak with you again. If you keep going, I'll kill your dog. Not wound it - stone dead, no resurrection.
You're so cute! First, I'm allergic, so I don't have a dog, but second, you seem to think I'd consider your silence a *threat*!:)
I love you KM, and I love our time together, but you've got a lot to learn:) Try with this starter list:
1) proving a negative 2) russell's teapot 3) karl popper and falsifiability
You could do it if you tried, but we already know that's a soft spot in your character:)
"1. The scientists involved in the email exchanges manipulated evidence in IPCC and WMO reports with the effect of misleading readers, including policymakers. The divergence problem was concealed by deleting data to “hide the decline.” The panels that examined the issue in detail, namely Muir Russell’s panel, concurred that the graph was “misleading.” The ridiculous attempt by the Penn State Inquiry to defend an instance of deleting data and splicing in other data to conceal a divergence problem only discredits their claims to have investigated the issue.
2. Phil Jones admitted deleting emails, and it appears to have been directed towards preventing disclosure of information subject to Freedom of Information laws, and he asked his colleagues to do the same. The inquiries largely fumbled this question, or averted their eyes. Despite being asked by Parliament to conclusively resolve this issue, Sir Muir Russell did not attend the interviews with Jones and, as reported in UK media, his inquiry did not ask Jones if he had deleted emails.
3. The scientists privately expressed greater doubts or uncertainties about the science in their own professional writings and in their interactions with one another than they allowed to be stated in reports of the IPCC or WMO that were intended for policymakers. Rather than criticise the scientists for this, the inquiries (particularly the House of Commons and Oxburgh inquiries) took the astonishing view that as long as scientists expressed doubts and uncertainties in their academic papers and among themselves, it was acceptable for them to conceal those uncertainties in documents prepared for policy makers.
4. The scientists took steps individually or in collusion to block access to data or methodologies in order to prevent external examination of their work. This point was accepted by the Commons Inquiry and Muir Russell, and the authors were admonished and encouraged to improve their conduct in the future.
5. The inquiries were largely unable to deal with the issue of the issue of blocking publication of papers, or intimidating journals. These ended up being subjective, he-said-she-said disputes, and in some cases the documentation was too sparse. But academics reading the emails could see quite clearly the tribalism at work, and in comparison to other fields, climatology comes off looking juvenile, corrupt and in the grip of a handful of self-appointed gatekeepers and bullies.
There remain two other questions needing to be addressed:
6. Is the IPCC a reliable source of information on climate change? In light of the answer to question 3, and the findings of the IAC that fundamental reforms are needed, the answer is that, even if one assumes that the existing problems did not compromise the validity of previous IPCC reports, as of the present, the IPCC should be viewed as unsound until and unless fundamental reforms are implemented. It has become tendentious and conniving, and its review process is compromised.
7. Is the science concerning the current concerns about climate change sound? Many people, starting with the members of the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, had hoped this question would be answered during the inquiry process, and there is a frequent refrain in the media that the investigations affirmed the science. But the reality is that none of the inquiries actually investigated the science. The one inquiry supposedly set up to address this, namely Lord Oxburgh’s, actually operated under a different remit altogether, despite multiple claims by the UEA that it was a science reappraisal panel. Sir Muir Russell’s team had no mandate to assess CRU scientific wo
Now, if you want to make the argument that NOAA 2008 isn't a single model, but rather a single paper, and it refers to multiple simulation runs of HADcm3, I'm happy to use more specific language to help you understand the issue.:)
you misquoted my remarks to frame them into an argument that you would rather answer.
No, I properly quoted your remarks and made an argument that apparently you have no coherent response to:)
The NOAA 2008 Model debacle must be a blow for you, huh?
What's your problem with NOAA 2008? We've already established that it contained falsification criteria that were observed, and that according to you, its falsification has no bearing on whether or not AGW is true.
Put another way, is there *any* model that you believe would have a bearing on whether or not AGW is true?
Next time, check your facts.
Checking - yup, the fact is you still haven't, in hundreds of comments, quoted a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW:)
"Coming now to the more topical and contentious case of climate change, it is clear that science is operating in a Kuhnian fashion. There are a number of observations which would apparently serve to falsify the hypothesised enhanced greenhouse effect. Not least of these are the missing signature of CO2-driven warming (an enhanced rate of warming in the upper troposphere relative to the Earth's surface) and the lack of warming across the greater part of Antarctica. The response to this – from those who do not simply dismiss the evidence out of hand – is to point instead to evidence which is consistent with the AGW hypothesis and to introduce a range of fudge factors such as aerosols to account for the observed lack of correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide level and average temperatures.
The behaviour of a great many researchers involved in climate change is far from Popperian. Rather than test their hypothesis by trying to falsify it, they look instead for evidence which supports it and, in a deeply unscientific manner, will often simply dismiss contrary evidence on the basis of minor flaws or criticism. This is research done according to prejudice rather than with an open mind. To compound the error, and because evidence can only be gathered by observation rather than experiment, increasing reliance has been placed on computer models."
"The IPCC appreciated the necessity for attempting to falsify results by a process of validation from the beginning. Their first Report (1990)7 has a Chapter 4 “Validation of Climate Models”
A similar Chapter appeared in the First Draft of the next (1995) Report and, as an “Expert Reviewer” at the time, I submitted the comment that since no Climate Model has ever been validated the term was inappropriate. Somewhat to my surprise, they agreed with me. In the Second Draft, not only had the title of the Chapter been changed, to “Evaluation of Climate Models” but the words “validation” and “validated” had been altered to “evaluation” and “evaluated” no less than fifty times in the text. In addition, all references to “forecasting” and “prediction” had been removed and all model results are now “projections” whose value depends on the extent to which their assumptions can be believed. .
These practices are now standard throughout all the IPCC Reports,.In other words, the IPCC admits that Climate Science cannot meet the requirements usually regarded as essential for the scientific method.."
Russell's teapot applies perfectly in this case – Russell surmises that in the case of the unobservable item (the teapot) the burden of proof lies with the asserter (you).
So...what you're saying is...the falsifiable hypothesis of AGW is unobservable:)
This would fit with the idea that it exists out there somewhere, but an adherent such as yourself cannot bring yourself to quote it:) Perhaps some ritual is required before it is shareable with the masses?:)
If you insist that you have some empirical proof that God does not exist, you are required to provide it, because the question of the existence of God is non-empirical unlike your own assertion.
So, the question of the existence of a falsifiable hypothesis of AGW is non-empirical, which means you don't need to provide any proof. I understand your rationale, but do you understand how flawed that is?
Are you a theist?
If you make some statement of belief (e.g. “I believe God does not exist”) this is perfectly acceptable but has no impact on someone who believes otherwise, and no impact on empirical reality.
Okay, so I believe that a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis of AGW does not exist. You believe otherwise. How do we determine empirical reality? Shall we just assume that it's my job to prove a negative? Really?
You say that climatologists don't have a falsifiable hypothesis. Now prove it.
I say that there is no Russell's Teapot. Now I'm supposed to prove that?:)
Wow, you've taken denial to a whole new level:)
if you assert that somebody else's published work is not falsifiable and it ought to be, it's up to you to prove it.
Wait, so somebody else's published work, that has no falsifiable hypothesis statement, requires *me* to prove that it doesn't have one?
Here, try this - I've read every single AGW paper ever published. Barring NOAA 2008, none have made any statement of a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement. You can check my work by actually reading every single AGW paper ever published:)
you've already admitted that the models are falsifiable, your arguments concerning supposed fraud by Mann, Gleick, and Hansen are devoid of meaning.
Wow. You go from NOAA 2008 to all "the models". I think you failed to read what I wrote again:)
You've equated science with theology.
No, I've equated your belief in AGW with theology, as it fails to actually have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, and apparently requires that people prove the negative before it is dismissed:)
Just like a theist, you believe the proof lies in the person who believes that there is no Russell's teapot:)
Don't be a dick. What does dickish behaviour gain you at this point?
Entertainment:) You're cute when you're cranky:)
My response has been “Prove your assertion”.
But apparently without applying the same standard to yourself:)
Go ahead, prove your assertion that AGW has a necessary and falsifiable hypothesis:)
Pretty much the same form as any other empirical proof of a negative, e.g. “the sun does not revolve around the earth”
Wait, so you think the default assumption should've been "the sun revolves around the earth"? You believe that that particular scientific epiphany should have been accepted before ever entertaining say, the geocentric
You don’t get to define your own criteria. These are set for you by the scientific method, which in this case, specifies that the burden of proof for your assertion “AGW is not falsifiable” lies clearly with you
So you not only want to ask the question, but you want to tell me how to answer it too?:)
I'm sorry, but asserting that there is some burden of proof on proving a negative is simply a semantic attempt for you to shift responsibilities that thus far, you've shirked.
Put more bluntly, the burden of proof for your assertion "AGW is falsifiable" lies clearly with you, and you've failed to address it time and time again:)
You could provide verifiable proof of your assertion that the underlying science of AGW is not falsifiable - showing working.
Again, you're failing to understand that the burden of proof lies with the affirmative - you're asking me to prove that there are no fairies in your garden, further insisting that so long as I cannot prove that negative, I must assume your assertion is true.
Do you really need a lesson on the fallacy of proving a negative?
Or do you think I also have to prove to you that God does not exist, by showing working?:)
You stated your hypothesis as a negative, your method of stating your hypothesis does not challenge the rules of burden of proof.
So, if I started with the hypothesis "God does not exist", it would be my burden then too?:)
You act as if my hypothesis could be stated as a positive, rather than a negative. Would you like to demonstrate that?
That if you express a belief as fact e.g. “Natural CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but anthropogenically emitted CO2 is not” that somehow, climatologists are obliged to prove you wrong?
Whoa there Trigger, you've jumped again, from the laboratory to the real world, without a critical thought. First of all, CO2 is a greenhouse gas - just like H2O is. Anthropogenically emitted CO2 is a greenhouse gas, just as butterfly emitted CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
None of these truths means that butterfly or human emissions of CO2 or H2O have any significant effect on global average temperatures.
Further, I'm not even at the stage of asking you "wrong" or "right", we're starting with the very foundation of science - falsifiability. If climatologists can't even come up with a falsifiable hypothesis, they can't even get *near* the question of "right" or "wrong" in the scientific sense.
The rules for burden of proof vary depending on whether or not the asserter is actually stating an assertion that is already scientifically proven.
So you're simply asserting that AGW is already scientifically proven, even though you cannot cite or quote a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement?:)
Wow, ballsy. It's like hearing a creationist assert that Noah's ark is already scientifically proven, while glossing completely over the lack of any falsifiability:)
a. If I restate an assertion that is already tested and proven according to the scientific method, I have no burden of proof.
But AGW hasn't been tested and proven according to the scientific method. You can't even cite its necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement - something that *surely* would exist if it was already proven using the scientific method!:)
b. If I state a hypothesis that contradicts an assertion already tested and proven according to the scientific method, the burden of proof rests with me.
You'll note that in asking the question I did not ask you to restate your BELIEF that you have some way to prove you hypothesis. Your doctrines don't provide sufficient proof.
And you'll note that in answering the question I ate my own dogfood and applied my own strict criteria to my posit. I demonstrated a good example of how to do science, and repudiated the faulty premise of your question.
So I tested your methodology by the following experiment. I said (out loud) "My hypothesis is that there are fairies in my garden".
I then waited an arbitrary amount of time.
Nobody stepped forward and falsified my hypothesis
I then went out and observed my garden. No fairies were observed
That isn't a falsifiable hypothesis. The falsifiable hypothesis would be the opposite, in fact, "My hypothesis is that there are no fairies in my garden. This can be falsified by the observation of fairies in my garden." You've stated no direct observation that would challenge the central conceit of your fairy hypothesis...just as you've failed to do with the AGW hypothesis.
I'm really beginning to think you don't understand the fallacy about asking someone to prove a negative - I highly suggest you look that up.
Your theory that is somebody else's job to prove you wrong is falsified.
Wow, isn't this *exactly* what you're trying to state in your two questions? You're asserting that it's *my* job to show AGW is not falsifiable (proving a negative), as well as that it is my job to detail a competing model to prove the CO2 conceit is wrong (or at least "wronger" than some arbitrary Hypothesis X explanation I'm supposed to show).
You do realize that when you make these kinds of attacks that apply to your own behavior, it undermines your position, right?
Look, you need to really take some time to understand Popper, even if you don't agree with him. Falsifiability doesn't mean you're making it someone else's job - falsifiability come even *before* the search for evidence and observation.
How will you know when you're wrong if you cannot imagine any observations that would show that you're wrong? Faith is built upon the edifice of a belief system that avoids this question...just as you're avoiding this question, again and again.
And you didn't answer my questions, so I'll ask them again:
Of course I answered your questions. You didn't like the answers, but I certainly did answer them, and you should stop lying about it. It makes you look petty and childish:)
both the underlying science of AGW and the models built on that groundwork are both falsifiable and true
Your "underlying science" (radiative properties of CO2) is falsifiable and arguably true.
AGW does not follow from the existence of the radiative properties of CO2, so it does not become falsifiable and true simply because the IR response of CO2 is falsifiable and true.
I'll further assert that NOAA 2008 was nearly unique in its specification of falsification criteria, and unsurprisingly, was in fact falsified. I know of no other paper in the literature that made any explicit statements of falsifiability, but I'm happy to read any that you can cite.
that you have no hypothesis or necessary method, statement, theory or assertion that would give us any doubt that AGW is verified
I'll quote you back to yourself: "Your theory that is somebody else's job to prove you wrong is falsified.":)
It's not my job to replace your unfalsifiable AGW hypothesis with another model:)
the models represent an accurate model of our future climate and the warming associated with anthropogenic emissions.
setting that aside you didn't answer the Question that was posed
I beg to differ. Let's review: ##### You: "1. Prove your assertion that the science of AGW is not falsifiable, showing working."
Me: "I have a falsifiable hypothesis - I believe that there is no necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW. This hypothesis can be falsified by having anyone quote a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW.
No, asserting that the radiative properties of CO2 is sufficient is not an acceptable answer.
No, asserting that AGW is considered true by default is not an acceptable answer." #####
You might not *like* the answer you got, because obviously you don't really care for the idea of a falsifiable hypothesis, and I challenged the very premise of your question with my answer, but to say that I didn't answer is demonstrably false. I accept your apology for misunderstanding in advance:)
For the second bit: ##### You: "2. Detail your hypothesis that explains the recent warming event coinciding with the historical period beginning at the industrial age, and explaining the following observations:"
Me: "I'm not defending a hypothesis here. I'm auditing yours:)
You seem to believe that it's theoretically possible for there to be another hypothesis out there (call it Hypothesis X), that could explain all of the observations we've had over the past 150 years of global average CO2 and global average temperature, with an arbitrary accuracy *better* (by however small an amount) than the central conceit of human CO2 emissions.
What you don't seem to understand is that Hypothesis X would be just as unscientific as AGW if it did not have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
Again, read that sentence over and let it sink in.
I'll go even further and state that if you had an unfalsifiable Hypothesis X that was 99.99% accurate, and a falsifiable Hypothesis Y that was only 70% accurate, Hypothesis X would *still* be unscientific. Of course, no GCMs or predictions of AGW have been anywhere near that accurate, but you get the point." #####
Now again, you might not be happy with the answer I gave, because I directly challenge the utility of your question, but to say I didn't answer is either dishonest or demonstrating a terrible lack of comprehension. Again, I accept your apology in advance:)
As for the questions posed to you, you failed to answer (heck, you even failed to *attempt* to answer), so I'll fill in the blanks with my assumptions from your silence:
1) Insofar as arguing we have direct measurements of CO2 forcing, you've chosen not to argue with my assertion that you cannot jump to AGW simply from the radiative properties of a molecule. I graciously accept your concession.
2) Insofar as actually stating a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW, to be concretely clear about "the whole hypothesis" you're defending, your lack of response is taken that you've never seen one, although clearly you believe it exists. I humbly suggest that if you'd like to make a scientific argument, you actually *find* it.
3) Insofar as actually stating *any* observations of global CO2 levels and global average temperatures which would falsify your central conceit, your lack of answer here clearly indicates that you do not believe that any observation of the variables in question would be outside the bounds of the explanatory power of your hypothesis. You are clearly convinced that since CO2 absorbs IR, AGW is true, and that unless the actual physical constants of the universe were shown to be incorrect, you shall always believe your hypothesis. This, of course, is the definition of faith, and I accept that it is both important to you and sincere.
Now, I'm feeling a bit sorry for your lack of skill in putting together a cogent argument, so I've decided
1. Your assertion that I said that falsifying a single model will somehow falsify the whole theory is proven a fallacy. You attempted to misquote me to support your fallacy, but were caught out.
Whoa there, Trigger, you've gone from misunderstanding to full blown conspiracy mode! I know it's hard when your misunderstandings are illustrated clearly for everyone to see, but there's no need to get bitter and defensive!
You quoted me without proper context, specifically, without the context of the "if" statement. I stated, "if X, then Y". You've mistakenly asserted that I categorically stated "X is true".
"And...it [the model] was also falsified. So now can we give up on this AGW trope?"
Again, you fail to comprehend the argument - if NOAA 2008 is what makes AGW falsifiable, and NOAA 2008 is falsified, then AGW is falsified.
Now, you've clarified that you don't believe NOAA 2008 is what makes AGW falsifiable. I've asked you to specify what *does* make AGW falsifiable./crickets
All that second did is remind me that it is not my job to explain the workings of science to you.
So, challenged on your ridiculous claim of a "forcing-o-mometer" that directly measures CO2 forcing, you dodge:)
I'll say it flatly - there is no such thing, and you're lying or woefully ignorant. Feel free to repudiate my claim by specifying the measurement device which *directly* measures CO2 forcing.
Once again - nobody needs to prove anything to you or fill in the (obviously) vast gaps in your understanding of the subject matter.
You: We've directly measured CO2 forcing with magical forcing-o-mometers Me: B.S. - There is no such device. You: Well, obviously I'm not going to tell you what the device is, and I'll assert that since you don't know what it is, you're just ignorant.
Really? You're going to claim the naked emperor has a beautiful new set of clothes that normal people can't see?:)
For example, Tyndal observed that CO2 absorbs and re-radiates light in such a way that it traps heat in a gaseous mixture.
Okay, so now you're saying that the radiative properties of CO2 in a lab is a *direct* measurement of CO2 forcing in the global climate?
Really? Is *that* what your misunderstanding was? You thought that someone with a spectrograph measuring CO2 molecules in a test tube somehow was directly measuring the forcing effect of CO2 on global average temperature in the real world?
Yes, you can directly measure the properties of CO2. You can also directly measure the properties of H2O. From those properties, you cannot blithely assert a specific sensitivity of global average temperature to either CO2 or H2O levels.
Or would you like to argue otherwise, and dig yourself in deeper?:)
So yes, when referring to *their* work, the correct terminology would be to refer to them directly e.g "I don't hold to the notions of thermodynamics proposed by Rumford" or simply refer to it as "science".
I was referring to *your* clause of "the whole theory". If you wanted to be more specific, you could have said, "I called your assertion (that falsifying a single model will somehow falsify the whole theory of thermodynamics proposed by Rumford.) conflation".
Of course, you didn't, because we weren't talking about Rumford's theories. Unfortunately, we were talking about an ambiguous, non-falsifiable, and thus far unquoted hypothesis of AGW, which you're either purporting exists somewhere unspecified, or is simply the logical conclusion to draw from a disparate cluster of other hypotheses.
Would you like to clarify your assertions by actually *stating* a necessary and falsifiable hypothesis of AGW?/crickets
I called your assertion (that falsifying a single model will somehow falsify the whole theory.) conflation and a logical fallacy. There is no way to interpet my remarks as agreeing with your assertion.
Your question was for a citation to "my theory" (as in "your theory"). I provided you the genesis of that citation - you used the term "the whole theory", and I in return used the term "your theory" to refer to "the theory you referred to in your statement", not "the theory which is possessively yours, and no one else's".
Now you want to argue whether or not it agreed with my assertion? One thing at a time, KM:)
You said that the NOAA 2008 model was falsified, and via that falsification, the entire branch of climatology was falsified
No, I said that if AGW was to be considered falsifiable because of NOAA 2008, and NOAA 2008, then the logical conclusion is that once NOAA 2008 is falsified, so is AGW.
My critique there, which you still don't seem to understand, is that you cannot have your cake and eat it too - if you claim AGW is falsifiable because of NOAA 2008, then you must also accept that AGW has been falsified because NOAA 2008 has been.
Not the use of the word "if".
Firstly, because we have direct observations of CO2 forcing, and direct measurements of the *change* in forcing due to our own emissions.
You're off the reservation on this one KM:) If forcing is a direct measurement, then why is it always shown as a probability distribution?:)
Think about that for a second.
Next, tell me what the direct measurement of the *change* in forcing due to our own emissions was in April 2013. Exactly what kind of forcing-o-mometer are you using for your measurement? What units does it measure in?:)
We do not need models to confirm these observations, and therefore they cannot falsify the underlying theory.
You've just proven my point - you're flatly stating here that observations cannot possibly falsify the underlying theory.
Now, in case I've misinterpreted you, and what you really meant was "confirming observations cannot falsify the underlying theory", can you state *any* observation of your "forcing-o-mometer" that would falsify the central conceit of the underlying theory?
Or: more likely, you were attempting to portray your remarks as directed against a theory that I myself made up.
No, that is a misunderstanding on your part. Please feel free to replace the term "your theory" with "the theory", if you can remember that "the theory" refers to "the whole theory" you have referenced.
So when addressing "the opposing side" be sure to use the correct pronoun!
I wasn't having a conversation with Newton, Einstein, Fourier, Tyndall, Hornborg, Popper, Arrhenius, or Hawking, and so it would've been grammatically incorrect to refer to the theory *you* were referencing by calling it "their theory".
I'm happy to answer the question: No: I do not think that , for the reasons stated above.
Excellent, we're getting somewhere - you don't believe that NOAA 2008's falsifiability confers falsifiability upon the central conceit of AGW.
Next question: Is AGW a falsifiable theory, and if so, what observations would falsify it?
2. Why did you state that the underlying theory was not falsifiable when you clearly think that it is?
Again, a misunderstanding on your part. Let's split the universe up into a few possibilities, and maybe you can understand my "if" statements you've mistaken for simple assertions:
1) AGW is falsifiable because NOAA 2008 is falsifiable
You've already addressed this - you simply don't believe it, and I accept yo
Again, you completely forget to answer the questions asked of you:)
Since you seem to be having a difficult time understanding my answers, I agree, we should do them one at a time - and maybe, you can answer questions posed to you one at a time too:)
Please be sure to find a citation in which I mention "my theory".
Here's what you quoted from me:
"My argument is that you're claiming that a single falsifiable model makes your whole theory falsifiable"
Here is what *you* said I was responding to:
I'll say this again: Let assume you are right and the NOAA 2008 model was falsified. Or randomly pick any other model. Not out of the question - models have certainly been falsified in the past. What then?
Your view is that falsifying a single model will somehow falsify the whole theory.
The "my theory" is in direct reference to your quote "the whole theory". You might not comprehend this, so I'll break it down in parts.
1) You stipulated to NOAA 2008 as not only falsifiable, but actually *falsified*; 2) I asserted that *if* AGW is considered falsifiable because NOAA 2008 is falsifiable, you must agree that once NOAA 2008 is falsified, then so is AGW; 3) You critiqued your misunderstanding of my position, as if I was asserting that in all cases, any model failure causes the failure of an entire theory - on the contrary, if indeed a theory has a falsifiable hypothesis, then various models which may be either incidental or ancillary to the theory may be falsified without affecting the central conceit, *SO LONG AS THE CENTRAL CONCEIT IS FALSIFIABLE BY OTHER MEANS*. Read the caps part again, slowly, and let that sink in. 4) In your critique of your misunderstanding of my position, you referred to "the whole theory"; 5) I attributed this "whole theory" as the theory you were talking about - i.e., *your* theory (or "my theory" when you're speaking from your point of view)
Now, perhaps you misunderstood the word "your", and took it to mean a personal theory that belonged to you, rather than "your" as in the theory *you* were talking about in your comment.
So to help clear it up, we can restate my comment as so:
"My argument is that you're claiming that a single falsifiable model makes the whole theory falsifiable"
Why do I make this argument? Because you keep insisting that I asserted AGW was falsifiable because I asserted NOAA 2008 was falsifiable.
So now, let's ask you a *single* question, and we'll see if you have the intestinal fortitude to answer it:
Question 1: Do you assert that AGW is falsifiable because NOAA 2008 is falsifiable? Yes or no will do, but if you wish to try and explain yourself further, please, feel free!
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, while some US affirmative action policies are quite flagrant, over the top wholesale discrimination, truth be told, they pale in comparison to India's Scheduled Castes and Classes.
Both countries have a lot of work to do before they've finally let go of the vestiges of racial and ethnic discrimination.
Well, we're talking about large population groups and tendencies, and if it's simply "superior physical strength", and the Y chromosome is correlated with superior physical strength, you've found your biomarker. Yes, you can have weak men, but you can certainly have non-violent people with "violence biomarkers" in the same way you can have non-cancer-ridden people with "cancer biomarkers".
Btw, do you have a cite for the studies you mention about "gender symmetry"? Domestic violence, as a subset of violence, may or may not be indicative of overall violence.
...it's called the "Y" chromosome.
Now what do these geniuses propose to do about people with that biomarker?
...why not just issue a CCW with every smartphone purchased, under the condition that the purchaser passes the required training and background checks?
If thieves knew that smartphone owners might be armed and dangerous, they just might stop thieving.
You make a good point - science by press release is notorious for turning the most dull and meaningless paper into something exciting and eye catching. Sadly, both the press and the scientists involved are often complicit in the hyping of data in order to garner attention and ultimately funding, either in terms of grants or advertising.
As for supporting any conclusion, they could also have said that health improves trees - their choice of *which* implication to highlight (though neither is proven) is an explicit bias on their part that is both misleading and improper.
The hypothesis posited wasn't one of correlation. From TFA:
"'Well my basic hypothesis was that trees improve people's health"
That's a hypothesis of causality. Trees *cause* an improvement in people's health.
While finding no correlation may be good enough to exclude that hypothesis, finding correlation is *not* sufficient to lead us to believe in his preferred causality direction.
There are three primary options we must consider when looking at causality within a correlation -> A causes B, B causes A, or C causes A and B.
In order to do science one must have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement that excludes the two options past A causes B.
Mod parent up. The proposed hypothesis does not include a necessary and sufficient statement of falsifiability.
Sure it does. Search for "rule out". It rules out what has already been observed at the 95% confidence level...are you really going to claim that you still have a 5% chance of being right in the Bayesian sense? :)
Surely you understood the context to mean NOAA 2008 was referring to the model HADcm3. Or then again, maybe you didn't understand it, since you obviously never read NOAA 2008 :)
You're so cute! First, I'm allergic, so I don't have a dog, but second, you seem to think I'd consider your silence a *threat*! :)
I love you KM, and I love our time together, but you've got a lot to learn :) Try with this starter list:
1) proving a negative
2) russell's teapot
3) karl popper and falsifiability
You could do it if you tried, but we already know that's a soft spot in your character :)
I love youtube :)
More christmas cheer for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmPSUMBrJoI
You're not reading things again, are you? :)
But since we're on youtube, here's some soothing tunes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yrd3HYU80Dk
Here, some thorough work on the whitewashes, which you probably won't read, and therefore will be unable to comprehend :):
http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/rmck_climategate.pdf
"1. The scientists involved in the email exchanges manipulated evidence in IPCC and WMO reports with the effect of misleading readers, including policymakers. The divergence problem was concealed by deleting data to “hide the decline.” The panels that examined the issue in detail, namely Muir Russell’s panel, concurred that the graph was “misleading.” The ridiculous attempt by the Penn State Inquiry to defend an instance of deleting data and splicing in other data to conceal a divergence problem only discredits their claims to have investigated the issue.
2. Phil Jones admitted deleting emails, and it appears to have been directed towards preventing disclosure of information subject to Freedom of Information laws, and he asked his colleagues to do the same. The inquiries largely fumbled this question, or averted their eyes. Despite being asked by Parliament to conclusively resolve this issue, Sir Muir Russell did not attend the interviews with Jones and, as reported in UK media, his inquiry did not ask Jones if he had deleted emails.
3. The scientists privately expressed greater doubts or uncertainties about the science in their own professional writings and in their interactions with one another than they allowed to be stated in reports of the IPCC or WMO that were intended for policymakers. Rather than criticise the scientists for this, the inquiries (particularly the House of Commons and Oxburgh inquiries) took the astonishing view that as long as scientists expressed doubts and uncertainties in their academic papers and among themselves, it was acceptable for them to conceal those uncertainties in documents prepared for policy makers.
4. The scientists took steps individually or in collusion to block access to data or methodologies in order to prevent external examination of their work. This point was accepted by the Commons Inquiry and Muir Russell, and the authors were admonished and encouraged to improve their conduct in the future.
5. The inquiries were largely unable to deal with the issue of the issue of blocking publication of papers, or intimidating journals. These ended up being subjective, he-said-she-said disputes, and in some cases the documentation was too sparse. But academics reading the emails could see quite clearly the tribalism at work, and in comparison to other fields, climatology comes off looking juvenile, corrupt and in the grip of a handful of self-appointed gatekeepers and bullies.
There remain two other questions needing to be addressed:
6. Is the IPCC a reliable source of information on climate change? In light of the answer to question 3, and the findings of the IAC that fundamental reforms are needed, the answer is that, even if one assumes that the existing problems did not compromise the validity of previous IPCC reports, as of the present, the IPCC should be viewed as unsound until and unless fundamental reforms are implemented. It has become tendentious and conniving, and its review process is compromised.
7. Is the science concerning the current concerns about climate change sound? Many people, starting with the members of the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, had hoped this question would be answered during the inquiry process, and there is a frequent refrain in the media that the investigations affirmed the science. But the reality is that none of the inquiries actually investigated the science. The one inquiry supposedly set up to address this, namely Lord Oxburgh’s, actually operated under a different remit altogether, despite multiple claims by the UEA that it was a science reappraisal panel. Sir Muir Russell’s team had no mandate to assess CRU scientific wo
What don't you understand about your reference?
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf
Search for the phrase "rule out".
Now, if you want to make the argument that NOAA 2008 isn't a single model, but rather a single paper, and it refers to multiple simulation runs of HADcm3, I'm happy to use more specific language to help you understand the issue. :)
No, I properly quoted your remarks and made an argument that apparently you have no coherent response to :)
What's your problem with NOAA 2008? We've already established that it contained falsification criteria that were observed, and that according to you, its falsification has no bearing on whether or not AGW is true.
Put another way, is there *any* model that you believe would have a bearing on whether or not AGW is true?
Checking - yup, the fact is you still haven't, in hundreds of comments, quoted a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW :)
I said NOAA 2008 was falsifiable, and furthermore it was falsified.
You claim that its falsification has no bearing on the falsifiability or falsification of AGW.
So, in your world, climate models don't matter if they fail :)
Climategate. Google it. Especially the refutation of the many whitewash "investigations" :)
Show working :)
And the hits keep on coming:
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2012/10/10/agw-experts-are-idiots/
tl;dr - less antarctic ice is global warming. more antarctic ice is global warming.
Another great little gem on falsifiability:
http://www.scientific-alliance.org/scientific-alliance-newsletter/time-new-paradigm-climate-change
"Coming now to the more topical and contentious case of climate change, it is clear that science is operating in a Kuhnian fashion. There are a number of observations which would apparently serve to falsify the hypothesised enhanced greenhouse effect. Not least of these are the missing signature of CO2-driven warming (an enhanced rate of warming in the upper troposphere relative to the Earth's surface) and the lack of warming across the greater part of Antarctica. The response to this – from those who do not simply dismiss the evidence out of hand – is to point instead to evidence which is consistent with the AGW hypothesis and to introduce a range of fudge factors such as aerosols to account for the observed lack of correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide level and average temperatures.
The behaviour of a great many researchers involved in climate change is far from Popperian. Rather than test their hypothesis by trying to falsify it, they look instead for evidence which supports it and, in a deeply unscientific manner, will often simply dismiss contrary evidence on the basis of minor flaws or criticism. This is research done according to prejudice rather than with an open mind. To compound the error, and because evidence can only be gathered by observation rather than experiment, increasing reliance has been placed on computer models."
Here's a fairly good back and forth on the falsifiability angle: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=521245
Even funnier is the IPCC explicitly avoiding claims of falsifiability of the models:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ScientificEvidence.pdf
"The IPCC appreciated the necessity for attempting to falsify results by a process of validation from the beginning. Their first Report (1990)7 has a Chapter 4 “Validation of Climate Models”
A similar Chapter appeared in the First Draft of the next (1995) Report and, as an “Expert Reviewer” at the time, I submitted the comment that since no Climate Model has ever been validated the term was inappropriate. Somewhat to my surprise, they agreed with me. In the Second Draft, not only had the title of the Chapter been changed, to “Evaluation of Climate Models” but the words “validation” and “validated” had been altered to “evaluation” and “evaluated” no less than fifty times in the text. In addition, all references to “forecasting” and “prediction” had been removed and all model results are now “projections” whose value depends on the extent to which their assumptions can be believed. .
These practices are now standard throughout all the IPCC Reports, .In other words, the IPCC admits that Climate Science cannot meet the requirements usually regarded as essential for the scientific method. ."
So...what you're saying is...the falsifiable hypothesis of AGW is unobservable :)
This would fit with the idea that it exists out there somewhere, but an adherent such as yourself cannot bring yourself to quote it :) Perhaps some ritual is required before it is shareable with the masses? :)
So, the question of the existence of a falsifiable hypothesis of AGW is non-empirical, which means you don't need to provide any proof. I understand your rationale, but do you understand how flawed that is?
Are you a theist?
Okay, so I believe that a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis of AGW does not exist. You believe otherwise. How do we determine empirical reality? Shall we just assume that it's my job to prove a negative? Really?
I say that there is no Russell's Teapot. Now I'm supposed to prove that? :)
Wow, you've taken denial to a whole new level :)
Wait, so somebody else's published work, that has no falsifiable hypothesis statement, requires *me* to prove that it doesn't have one?
Here, try this - I've read every single AGW paper ever published. Barring NOAA 2008, none have made any statement of a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement. You can check my work by actually reading every single AGW paper ever published :)
Wow. You go from NOAA 2008 to all "the models". I think you failed to read what I wrote again :)
No, I've equated your belief in AGW with theology, as it fails to actually have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, and apparently requires that people prove the negative before it is dismissed :)
Just like a theist, you believe the proof lies in the person who believes that there is no Russell's teapot :)
Entertainment :) You're cute when you're cranky :)
But apparently without applying the same standard to yourself :)
Go ahead, prove your assertion that AGW has a necessary and falsifiable hypothesis :)
Wait, so you think the default assumption should've been "the sun revolves around the earth"? You believe that that particular scientific epiphany should have been accepted before ever entertaining say, the geocentric
So you not only want to ask the question, but you want to tell me how to answer it too? :)
I'm sorry, but asserting that there is some burden of proof on proving a negative is simply a semantic attempt for you to shift responsibilities that thus far, you've shirked.
Put more bluntly, the burden of proof for your assertion "AGW is falsifiable" lies clearly with you, and you've failed to address it time and time again :)
Again, you're failing to understand that the burden of proof lies with the affirmative - you're asking me to prove that there are no fairies in your garden, further insisting that so long as I cannot prove that negative, I must assume your assertion is true.
Do you really need a lesson on the fallacy of proving a negative?
Here, learn about Russell's teapot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
Or do you think I also have to prove to you that God does not exist, by showing working? :)
So, if I started with the hypothesis "God does not exist", it would be my burden then too? :)
You act as if my hypothesis could be stated as a positive, rather than a negative. Would you like to demonstrate that?
Whoa there Trigger, you've jumped again, from the laboratory to the real world, without a critical thought. First of all, CO2 is a greenhouse gas - just like H2O is. Anthropogenically emitted CO2 is a greenhouse gas, just as butterfly emitted CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
None of these truths means that butterfly or human emissions of CO2 or H2O have any significant effect on global average temperatures.
Further, I'm not even at the stage of asking you "wrong" or "right", we're starting with the very foundation of science - falsifiability. If climatologists can't even come up with a falsifiable hypothesis, they can't even get *near* the question of "right" or "wrong" in the scientific sense.
So you're simply asserting that AGW is already scientifically proven, even though you cannot cite or quote a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement? :)
Wow, ballsy. It's like hearing a creationist assert that Noah's ark is already scientifically proven, while glossing completely over the lack of any falsifiability :)
But AGW hasn't been tested and proven according to the scientific method. You can't even cite its necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement - something that *surely* would exist if it was already proven using the scientific method! :)
And you'll note that in answering the question I ate my own dogfood and applied my own strict criteria to my posit. I demonstrated a good example of how to do science, and repudiated the faulty premise of your question.
That isn't a falsifiable hypothesis. The falsifiable hypothesis would be the opposite, in fact, "My hypothesis is that there are no fairies in my garden. This can be falsified by the observation of fairies in my garden." You've stated no direct observation that would challenge the central conceit of your fairy hypothesis...just as you've failed to do with the AGW hypothesis.
I'm really beginning to think you don't understand the fallacy about asking someone to prove a negative - I highly suggest you look that up.
Wow, isn't this *exactly* what you're trying to state in your two questions? You're asserting that it's *my* job to show AGW is not falsifiable (proving a negative), as well as that it is my job to detail a competing model to prove the CO2 conceit is wrong (or at least "wronger" than some arbitrary Hypothesis X explanation I'm supposed to show).
You do realize that when you make these kinds of attacks that apply to your own behavior, it undermines your position, right?
Look, you need to really take some time to understand Popper, even if you don't agree with him. Falsifiability doesn't mean you're making it someone else's job - falsifiability come even *before* the search for evidence and observation.
How will you know when you're wrong if you cannot imagine any observations that would show that you're wrong? Faith is built upon the edifice of a belief system that avoids this question...just as you're avoiding this question, again and again.
Of course I answered your questions. You didn't like the answers, but I certainly did answer them, and you should stop lying about it. It makes you look petty and childish :)
Your "underlying science" (radiative properties of CO2) is falsifiable and arguably true.
AGW does not follow from the existence of the radiative properties of CO2, so it does not become falsifiable and true simply because the IR response of CO2 is falsifiable and true.
I'll further assert that NOAA 2008 was nearly unique in its specification of falsification criteria, and unsurprisingly, was in fact falsified. I know of no other paper in the literature that made any explicit statements of falsifiability, but I'm happy to read any that you can cite.
I'll quote you back to yourself: "Your theory that is somebody else's job to prove you wrong is falsified." :)
It's not my job to replace your unfalsifiable AGW hypothesis with another model :)
Wow. Define accurate:
I beg to differ. Let's review:
#####
You: "1. Prove your assertion that the science of AGW is not falsifiable, showing working."
Me: "I have a falsifiable hypothesis - I believe that there is no necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW. This hypothesis can be falsified by having anyone quote a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW.
No, asserting that the radiative properties of CO2 is sufficient is not an acceptable answer.
No, asserting that AGW is considered true by default is not an acceptable answer."
#####
You might not *like* the answer you got, because obviously you don't really care for the idea of a falsifiable hypothesis, and I challenged the very premise of your question with my answer, but to say that I didn't answer is demonstrably false. I accept your apology for misunderstanding in advance :)
For the second bit:
#####
You: "2. Detail your hypothesis that explains the recent warming event coinciding with the historical period beginning at the industrial age, and explaining the following observations:"
Me: "I'm not defending a hypothesis here. I'm auditing yours :)
You seem to believe that it's theoretically possible for there to be another hypothesis out there (call it Hypothesis X), that could explain all of the observations we've had over the past 150 years of global average CO2 and global average temperature, with an arbitrary accuracy *better* (by however small an amount) than the central conceit of human CO2 emissions.
What you don't seem to understand is that Hypothesis X would be just as unscientific as AGW if it did not have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
Again, read that sentence over and let it sink in.
I'll go even further and state that if you had an unfalsifiable Hypothesis X that was 99.99% accurate, and a falsifiable Hypothesis Y that was only 70% accurate, Hypothesis X would *still* be unscientific. Of course, no GCMs or predictions of AGW have been anywhere near that accurate, but you get the point."
#####
Now again, you might not be happy with the answer I gave, because I directly challenge the utility of your question, but to say I didn't answer is either dishonest or demonstrating a terrible lack of comprehension. Again, I accept your apology in advance :)
As for the questions posed to you, you failed to answer (heck, you even failed to *attempt* to answer), so I'll fill in the blanks with my assumptions from your silence:
1) Insofar as arguing we have direct measurements of CO2 forcing, you've chosen not to argue with my assertion that you cannot jump to AGW simply from the radiative properties of a molecule. I graciously accept your concession.
2) Insofar as actually stating a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW, to be concretely clear about "the whole hypothesis" you're defending, your lack of response is taken that you've never seen one, although clearly you believe it exists. I humbly suggest that if you'd like to make a scientific argument, you actually *find* it.
3) Insofar as actually stating *any* observations of global CO2 levels and global average temperatures which would falsify your central conceit, your lack of answer here clearly indicates that you do not believe that any observation of the variables in question would be outside the bounds of the explanatory power of your hypothesis. You are clearly convinced that since CO2 absorbs IR, AGW is true, and that unless the actual physical constants of the universe were shown to be incorrect, you shall always believe your hypothesis. This, of course, is the definition of faith, and I accept that it is both important to you and sincere.
Now, I'm feeling a bit sorry for your lack of skill in putting together a cogent argument, so I've decided
Whoa there, Trigger, you've gone from misunderstanding to full blown conspiracy mode! I know it's hard when your misunderstandings are illustrated clearly for everyone to see, but there's no need to get bitter and defensive!
You quoted me without proper context, specifically, without the context of the "if" statement. I stated, "if X, then Y". You've mistakenly asserted that I categorically stated "X is true".
Again, you fail to comprehend the argument - if NOAA 2008 is what makes AGW falsifiable, and NOAA 2008 is falsified, then AGW is falsified.
Now, you've clarified that you don't believe NOAA 2008 is what makes AGW falsifiable. I've asked you to specify what *does* make AGW falsifiable. /crickets
So, challenged on your ridiculous claim of a "forcing-o-mometer" that directly measures CO2 forcing, you dodge :)
I'll say it flatly - there is no such thing, and you're lying or woefully ignorant. Feel free to repudiate my claim by specifying the measurement device which *directly* measures CO2 forcing.
You: We've directly measured CO2 forcing with magical forcing-o-mometers
Me: B.S. - There is no such device.
You: Well, obviously I'm not going to tell you what the device is, and I'll assert that since you don't know what it is, you're just ignorant.
Really? You're going to claim the naked emperor has a beautiful new set of clothes that normal people can't see? :)
Okay, so now you're saying that the radiative properties of CO2 in a lab is a *direct* measurement of CO2 forcing in the global climate?
Really? Is *that* what your misunderstanding was? You thought that someone with a spectrograph measuring CO2 molecules in a test tube somehow was directly measuring the forcing effect of CO2 on global average temperature in the real world?
Yes, you can directly measure the properties of CO2. You can also directly measure the properties of H2O. From those properties, you cannot blithely assert a specific sensitivity of global average temperature to either CO2 or H2O levels.
Or would you like to argue otherwise, and dig yourself in deeper? :)
I was referring to *your* clause of "the whole theory". If you wanted to be more specific, you could have said, "I called your assertion (that falsifying a single model will somehow falsify the whole theory of thermodynamics proposed by Rumford.) conflation".
Of course, you didn't, because we weren't talking about Rumford's theories. Unfortunately, we were talking about an ambiguous, non-falsifiable, and thus far unquoted hypothesis of AGW, which you're either purporting exists somewhere unspecified, or is simply the logical conclusion to draw from a disparate cluster of other hypotheses.
Would you like to clarify your assertions by actually *stating* a necessary and falsifiable hypothesis of AGW? /crickets
Your question was for a citation to "my theory" (as in "your theory"). I provided you the genesis of that citation - you used the term "the whole theory", and I in return used the term "your theory" to refer to "the theory you referred to in your statement", not "the theory which is possessively yours, and no one else's".
Now you want to argue whether or not it agreed with my assertion? One thing at a time, KM :)
No, I said that if AGW was to be considered falsifiable because of NOAA 2008, and NOAA 2008, then the logical conclusion is that once NOAA 2008 is falsified, so is AGW.
My critique there, which you still don't seem to understand, is that you cannot have your cake and eat it too - if you claim AGW is falsifiable because of NOAA 2008, then you must also accept that AGW has been falsified because NOAA 2008 has been.
Not the use of the word "if".
You're off the reservation on this one KM :) If forcing is a direct measurement, then why is it always shown as a probability distribution? :)
Think about that for a second.
Next, tell me what the direct measurement of the *change* in forcing due to our own emissions was in April 2013. Exactly what kind of forcing-o-mometer are you using for your measurement? What units does it measure in? :)
You've just proven my point - you're flatly stating here that observations cannot possibly falsify the underlying theory.
Now, in case I've misinterpreted you, and what you really meant was "confirming observations cannot falsify the underlying theory", can you state *any* observation of your "forcing-o-mometer" that would falsify the central conceit of the underlying theory?
No, that is a misunderstanding on your part. Please feel free to replace the term "your theory" with "the theory", if you can remember that "the theory" refers to "the whole theory" you have referenced.
I wasn't having a conversation with Newton, Einstein, Fourier, Tyndall, Hornborg, Popper, Arrhenius, or Hawking, and so it would've been grammatically incorrect to refer to the theory *you* were referencing by calling it "their theory".
Excellent, we're getting somewhere - you don't believe that NOAA 2008's falsifiability confers falsifiability upon the central conceit of AGW.
Next question: Is AGW a falsifiable theory, and if so, what observations would falsify it?
Again, a misunderstanding on your part. Let's split the universe up into a few possibilities, and maybe you can understand my "if" statements you've mistaken for simple assertions:
1) AGW is falsifiable because NOAA 2008 is falsifiable
You've already addressed this - you simply don't believe it, and I accept yo
Again, you completely forget to answer the questions asked of you :)
Since you seem to be having a difficult time understanding my answers, I agree, we should do them one at a time - and maybe, you can answer questions posed to you one at a time too :)
Here's what you quoted from me:
"My argument is that you're claiming that a single falsifiable model makes your whole theory falsifiable"
Here is what *you* said I was responding to:
The "my theory" is in direct reference to your quote "the whole theory". You might not comprehend this, so I'll break it down in parts.
1) You stipulated to NOAA 2008 as not only falsifiable, but actually *falsified*;
2) I asserted that *if* AGW is considered falsifiable because NOAA 2008 is falsifiable, you must agree that once NOAA 2008 is falsified, then so is AGW;
3) You critiqued your misunderstanding of my position, as if I was asserting that in all cases, any model failure causes the failure of an entire theory - on the contrary, if indeed a theory has a falsifiable hypothesis, then various models which may be either incidental or ancillary to the theory may be falsified without affecting the central conceit, *SO LONG AS THE CENTRAL CONCEIT IS FALSIFIABLE BY OTHER MEANS*. Read the caps part again, slowly, and let that sink in.
4) In your critique of your misunderstanding of my position, you referred to "the whole theory";
5) I attributed this "whole theory" as the theory you were talking about - i.e., *your* theory (or "my theory" when you're speaking from your point of view)
Now, perhaps you misunderstood the word "your", and took it to mean a personal theory that belonged to you, rather than "your" as in the theory *you* were talking about in your comment.
So to help clear it up, we can restate my comment as so:
"My argument is that you're claiming that a single falsifiable model makes the whole theory falsifiable"
Why do I make this argument? Because you keep insisting that I asserted AGW was falsifiable because I asserted NOAA 2008 was falsifiable.
So now, let's ask you a *single* question, and we'll see if you have the intestinal fortitude to answer it:
Question 1: Do you assert that AGW is falsifiable because NOAA 2008 is falsifiable? Yes or no will do, but if you wish to try and explain yourself further, please, feel free!