I don't have to explain any increase - the burden of proof is on the affirmative:)
As for 30+ years of negative temperature trend in the face of increasing CO2, we've already seen this in the historical ice core record.
Making the ad hoc special pleading about confounding natural factors (like volcanic eruptions), only makes it more evident that our belief that modern human activity has had a significant effect on CO2 levels is likely misguided:)
I guess it all suppose what you value in the character of a person.
If you value someone who prioritizes race above all else, and demands purity of bloodline, then you might judge them by their thoughts and ideas and find them of "good character".
If you don't value someone who prioritizes altruistic action, and demands compassion for all, then you might judge them by their thoughts and ideas and find them of "bad character".
I'll flatly assert that people who think that we should always hold first and foremost in our minds judgements about people based on their immutable characteristics, rather than on their actual individual character, or those people who think that all people should naturally group into thought patterns determined by their immutable characteristics, have *bad* character.
I did read the actual memo. It was a concise and accurate summary of the current state of research.
If simply stating that there is indisputable evidence of sex-based differences in inclinations is a situation where a company has no choice but to fire someone, then we're in pretty sad shape.
What google should have done is established a zero tolerance policy for blacklists, ideological harassment, and insisted that tolerance for diversity means tolerance for diversity of opinion.
Instead, they let SJWs run wild, and it will cost them.
1) what observations would convince you that the concentration of rising CO2 is not primarily due to human activity; 2) how would the lack of those observations exclude the null hypothesis of natural climate change?
It's not about the multiple lines of "consistent with" evidence, it's about whether or not you can exclude natural climate change as a cause of rising CO2 - which you present no rationale for.
Would you be surprised to find out that despite predictions to the contrary, as human CO2 emissions have increased, the biosphere has responded by absorbing more CO2 than it ever did before, dynamically reacting to anthropogenic emissions rather than just being driven by them?
If you saw that data, where the more we dumped CO2 into the atmosphere, the faster and faster it was taken out, would that possibly shake your confidence in your belief that human emissions determine the final level of CO2 in the atmosphere?
In Jet Li's "The One", they had the two prison break scenes in alternate universes - one with Bush as president, the other with Gore.
FFS it feels like we're in an alternate universe now. Going from judging people by the "content of their character" rather than the "color of their skin", we've now institutionalized "diversity" initiatives that insist we diversify and include people based on their immutable characteristics, but exclude people based on their thoughts and ideas.
Astrology has all kinds of experiments - they have horoscopes, and star charts, and all kinds of predictions.
What they don't have is falsifiability. Just like AGW:)
You can't have falsifiable hypotheses without evidence as a starting point for making them, and an ending point for falsifying them.
You may have read Popper, but you didn't understand him.
Assume a universe of potential observations - we'll call this universe "total existing evidence".
Now, take a subset of that universe that has been observed, we'll call this "observed evidence".
Falsifiability requires not that you point at "observed evidence" "consistent with" your hypothesis, it requires that you identify observations that *could* exist in the "total existing evidence", but have not yet been observed, that would falsify your hypothesis.
In plain english - tell me what would change your mind, and why the absence of those things, there is no explanation except the one you like.
Perhaps, but others have the privilege of attacking a hypothesis with any good faith argument.
You can't scientifically attack a un-falsifiable hypothesis. Unfalsifiable hypotheses aren't science. Of course we can argue about them, even in good faith, but no matter how good faith our arguments are for or against astrology, it simply isn't a scientific field because it lacks falsifiability. As you know, Popper covered this in his demarcation discussion.
Extremes of seasonal weather in the shorter term are not inconsistent with a general rising temperature trend in the longer term.
A general rising temperature trend in the longer term is not inconsistent with natural climate change either.
That's why science isn't about "consistent with" - it's about falsifiability.
CO2's properties are necessary for there to be AGW.
The mere existence of CO2's properties doesn't prove AGW.
You have found some *necessary* points, but haven't enumerated *sufficient* ones.
There is nothing about observed CO2 levels or observed temperatures that could not be explained by natural climate change. The specific properties of CO2 don't exclude natural climate changes...which, as you know, have been happening for eons before humanity even existed:)
The key isn't evidence, it's falsifiability (which you'd understand if you read Popper).
It is the burden of proponents of a hypothesis to enumerate those observations which would falsify it - you simply cannot say "my hypothesis is confirmed by warmer winters" and also "my hypothesis is confirmed by colder winters". Specifically, you cannot have a hypothesis that is "perfectly defensible", and can make ad hoc excuses for any observations.
Every hypothesis survives as long as it has evidence to support it,
Every hypothesis survives as long as its falsification criteria have not been observed, and the absence of those observations also excludes the null. This is a key foundation of the scientific method.
If there were only a few white swans observed and no black ones, then the evidence is weak that only white swans exist.
You're wrong. It doesn't matter if you observe 3 white swans or 3 million white swans - the hypothesis of "all swans are white" is not strengthened by additional confirmation - it seems that way in layman's terms, but that's simply not the way science works (especially if you're spending all your time looking for more white swans, instead of really looking hard for non-white ones).
I'll make this falsifiable hypothesis: "There is no necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW, much less its cousin CAGW".
Falsification criteria: A list of observations that would disprove AGW, and an argument that the lack of these observations excludes the null.
To this date, after engaging with hundreds, if not thousands of AGW believers, and reading dozens if not hundreds of papers (not just the abstracts), and reading every IPCC report cover to cover, no such necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis has ever been produced.
I look forward to your earnest attempt to find the observation I listed in my falsification criteria:)
Evidence is not the key point of the scientific method. Neither is "overwhelming" evidence.
The trick is a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement. Specifically:
1) a list of observations, which if observed, mean a hypothesis is false; 2) a logical argument that the lack of those falsifications means that a hypothesis must be favored over all others (including the null).
Translation into plain english:
1) tell me what would change your mind; 2) tell me why those if the things that would change your mind aren’t there, the only explanation left is AGW.
Showing me the evidence of a million white swans doesn't overwhelmingly prove there are no black swans. Looking really hard for black swans, and failing to find them, is what a scientist would show as support for their hypothesis.
Okay, there you lost me. I'm not sure how asking for limits on government intervention invites public officials to try even more government intervention. It's like asserting that asking for a color blind society, and judging people on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, invites more racism. It's like saying that if we grow more food, it invites famine.
Maybe where we agree is that all public officials are half-wits, and a government of half-wits shouldn't be in charge of moderating either ISPs or search engines or social media platforms.
Having the government insist that we cannot discriminate network traffic is a bad idea.
If in fact, the government is doing this to prevent censorship, then it needs to look at the real threats to free speech - Google/Facebook/Amazon/Twitter/Etc, not Level3 or Charter Spectrum.
Neither of us is owed a platform, nor is either of us owed a network:)
The removal of net neutrality regulations was touted as "omgherz! they're gonna police muh content without net neutrality!!"
The fact of the matter is that it is perfectly reasonable to shape traffic based on congestion (say, between arbitrary endpoints), and forbidding such basic, standard network maintenance is silly.
What we should be concerned more about is large "common carrier" companies like Google/Facebook/Amazon/Twitter/Etc, who have de facto ability to censor content that they disapprove of. The real threat to freedom of speech and thought isn't ISPs, it's large internet corporations.
Well, to be the devil's devil's advocate, isn't this an arguably *good* thing in support of non-net-neutrality? If ISPs could throttle tracking domains, or spam emailers, wouldn't that be an unadulterated good for the hundreds of millions of people who might not be running the latest firefox browser?
tl;dr - if consumers actually value different traffic differently, why should ISPs be prevented from prioritizing traffic they value, and throttling traffic they don't?
I get it, the ISP "value" might be different from the end consumer "value", but in the case of spam and tracking domains, it seems they align pretty well. In fact, it seems like ISP throttling based on consumer preferences might be the only useful check on the dominance of companies like google, facebook, amazon, etc.
Mod parent up. TOS would fail SJW approval today because they didn't have Uhura give a lecture about white privilege, or have Sulu talk about how important gay marriage is. The last thing SJWs want is for us to actually treat everyone the same, no matter what their skin color, ear pointiness, sexual preference, or number of antennae - the whole point of social justice is to define one's identity through the trivial and pointless, so that we can "fight the power".
The big problem they have is that they became the power they were fighting against.
You're assuming that atmospheric CO2 levels are simply driven by unrelated sinks and sources.
The fact of the matter is that the CO2 cycle is actually highly integrated, with sinks and sources reacting to each other. There's good evidence that rather than temperature being driven by CO2 levels, it's the other way around, and both natural sinks and sources react to perturbations by compensating for them (sinking more when there is excess CO2, and sourcing more when there is a CO2 deficit).
We can be reasonably certain that the rate of increase is unprecedented.
That's simply not true. Our proxies of the past do not have the resolution nor the certainty required to make that kind of claim.
Proxies, with lower resolution (orders of magnitude less than our current daily and hourly temperature data, for example), and higher uncertainties, and of course, famously divergent with the modern record, simply cannot be seen as equivalent to direct instrumental observation.
Trees are not thermometers, and ice cores are not CO2-meters:)
It is entirely unfounded to believe that we can make any sort of definitive claims about "unprecedented" by using proxies that have orders of magnitude less resolution than the modern instrumental record. "sub-decadal" resolution simply cannot be apples-to-apples compared to daily or hourly instrumental temperature data. Particularly when you filter your data to exclude the Holocene Optimum or the MWP:)
But, those aren't facts. You're conflating observable fact with your personal belief system.
The oceans are warming. We don't have any sort of accurate data to say that it is unprecedented.
Global average air temperatures are warming (mostly on the "higher lows" side). We don't have any sort of accurate data to say that this is unprecedented.
Polar icecaps are both melting and refreezing. We don't have any sort of accurate data to say that this is unprecedented.
CO2 in the atmosphere is rising. We don't have any sort of accurate data to say that this is unprecedented.
What you are doing is assuming that *proxies* are accurate representations, without any sort of uncertainty. And your assumptions do not make for facts.
...and how do we know that CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc aren't the very kind of foreign propaganda trolls the article mentions, trying to discredit our own independent media outlets?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't have to explain any increase - the burden of proof is on the affirmative :)
As for 30+ years of negative temperature trend in the face of increasing CO2, we've already seen this in the historical ice core record.
Making the ad hoc special pleading about confounding natural factors (like volcanic eruptions), only makes it more evident that our belief that modern human activity has had a significant effect on CO2 levels is likely misguided :)
I guess it all suppose what you value in the character of a person.
If you value someone who prioritizes race above all else, and demands purity of bloodline, then you might judge them by their thoughts and ideas and find them of "good character".
If you don't value someone who prioritizes altruistic action, and demands compassion for all, then you might judge them by their thoughts and ideas and find them of "bad character".
I'll flatly assert that people who think that we should always hold first and foremost in our minds judgements about people based on their immutable characteristics, rather than on their actual individual character, or those people who think that all people should naturally group into thought patterns determined by their immutable characteristics, have *bad* character.
YMMV :)
I did read the actual memo. It was a concise and accurate summary of the current state of research.
If simply stating that there is indisputable evidence of sex-based differences in inclinations is a situation where a company has no choice but to fire someone, then we're in pretty sad shape.
What google should have done is established a zero tolerance policy for blacklists, ideological harassment, and insisted that tolerance for diversity means tolerance for diversity of opinion.
Instead, they let SJWs run wild, and it will cost them.
Funny, I would've guessed that most gay black conservatives are sharia loving islamists :)
1) what observations would convince you that the concentration of rising CO2 is not primarily due to human activity;
2) how would the lack of those observations exclude the null hypothesis of natural climate change?
It's not about the multiple lines of "consistent with" evidence, it's about whether or not you can exclude natural climate change as a cause of rising CO2 - which you present no rationale for.
Would you be surprised to find out that despite predictions to the contrary, as human CO2 emissions have increased, the biosphere has responded by absorbing more CO2 than it ever did before, dynamically reacting to anthropogenic emissions rather than just being driven by them?
If you saw that data, where the more we dumped CO2 into the atmosphere, the faster and faster it was taken out, would that possibly shake your confidence in your belief that human emissions determine the final level of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Man, it's shit like this that makes me view 0 score posts - AC, you're a fucking genius :)
Mod parent up.
We could have 100% women in tech tomorrow, if every man would just identify as a woman. After all, being a woman is all in the mind - because reasons.
In Jet Li's "The One", they had the two prison break scenes in alternate universes - one with Bush as president, the other with Gore.
FFS it feels like we're in an alternate universe now. Going from judging people by the "content of their character" rather than the "color of their skin", we've now institutionalized "diversity" initiatives that insist we diversify and include people based on their immutable characteristics, but exclude people based on their thoughts and ideas.
Sucks to be a gay black conservative nowadays.
Astrology has all kinds of experiments - they have horoscopes, and star charts, and all kinds of predictions.
What they don't have is falsifiability. Just like AGW :)
You may have read Popper, but you didn't understand him.
Assume a universe of potential observations - we'll call this universe "total existing evidence".
Now, take a subset of that universe that has been observed, we'll call this "observed evidence".
Falsifiability requires not that you point at "observed evidence" "consistent with" your hypothesis, it requires that you identify observations that *could* exist in the "total existing evidence", but have not yet been observed, that would falsify your hypothesis.
In plain english - tell me what would change your mind, and why the absence of those things, there is no explanation except the one you like.
You can't scientifically attack a un-falsifiable hypothesis. Unfalsifiable hypotheses aren't science. Of course we can argue about them, even in good faith, but no matter how good faith our arguments are for or against astrology, it simply isn't a scientific field because it lacks falsifiability. As you know, Popper covered this in his demarcation discussion.
A general rising temperature trend in the longer term is not inconsistent with natural climate change either.
That's why science isn't about "consistent with" - it's about falsifiability.
Humans are necessary for there to be AGW.
The mere existence of humans doesn't prove AGW.
CO2's properties are necessary for there to be AGW.
The mere existence of CO2's properties doesn't prove AGW.
You have found some *necessary* points, but haven't enumerated *sufficient* ones.
There is nothing about observed CO2 levels or observed temperatures that could not be explained by natural climate change. The specific properties of CO2 don't exclude natural climate changes...which, as you know, have been happening for eons before humanity even existed :)
Would you like to try again? :)
Astrology has evidence.
The bible has evidence.
The key isn't evidence, it's falsifiability (which you'd understand if you read Popper).
It is the burden of proponents of a hypothesis to enumerate those observations which would falsify it - you simply cannot say "my hypothesis is confirmed by warmer winters" and also "my hypothesis is confirmed by colder winters". Specifically, you cannot have a hypothesis that is "perfectly defensible", and can make ad hoc excuses for any observations.
Every hypothesis survives as long as its falsification criteria have not been observed, and the absence of those observations also excludes the null. This is a key foundation of the scientific method.
You're wrong. It doesn't matter if you observe 3 white swans or 3 million white swans - the hypothesis of "all swans are white" is not strengthened by additional confirmation - it seems that way in layman's terms, but that's simply not the way science works (especially if you're spending all your time looking for more white swans, instead of really looking hard for non-white ones).
I'll make this falsifiable hypothesis: "There is no necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW, much less its cousin CAGW".
Falsification criteria: A list of observations that would disprove AGW, and an argument that the lack of these observations excludes the null.
To this date, after engaging with hundreds, if not thousands of AGW believers, and reading dozens if not hundreds of papers (not just the abstracts), and reading every IPCC report cover to cover, no such necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis has ever been produced.
I look forward to your earnest attempt to find the observation I listed in my falsification criteria :)
Evidence is not the key point of the scientific method. Neither is "overwhelming" evidence.
The trick is a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement. Specifically:
1) a list of observations, which if observed, mean a hypothesis is false;
2) a logical argument that the lack of those falsifications means that a hypothesis must be favored over all others (including the null).
Translation into plain english:
1) tell me what would change your mind;
2) tell me why those if the things that would change your mind aren’t there, the only explanation left is AGW.
Showing me the evidence of a million white swans doesn't overwhelmingly prove there are no black swans. Looking really hard for black swans, and failing to find them, is what a scientist would show as support for their hypothesis.
Okay, there you lost me. I'm not sure how asking for limits on government intervention invites public officials to try even more government intervention. It's like asserting that asking for a color blind society, and judging people on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, invites more racism. It's like saying that if we grow more food, it invites famine.
Maybe where we agree is that all public officials are half-wits, and a government of half-wits shouldn't be in charge of moderating either ISPs or search engines or social media platforms.
Again, I'm agreeing with you as hard as I can.
Having the government insist that we cannot discriminate network traffic is a bad idea.
If in fact, the government is doing this to prevent censorship, then it needs to look at the real threats to free speech - Google/Facebook/Amazon/Twitter/Etc, not Level3 or Charter Spectrum.
Neither of us is owed a platform, nor is either of us owed a network :)
I'm agreeing with you as hard as I can.
The removal of net neutrality regulations was touted as "omgherz! they're gonna police muh content without net neutrality!!"
The fact of the matter is that it is perfectly reasonable to shape traffic based on congestion (say, between arbitrary endpoints), and forbidding such basic, standard network maintenance is silly.
What we should be concerned more about is large "common carrier" companies like Google/Facebook/Amazon/Twitter/Etc, who have de facto ability to censor content that they disapprove of. The real threat to freedom of speech and thought isn't ISPs, it's large internet corporations.
Too much logic for the lefties there :)
Remember, they play the game "Heads I win, tails you lose" :)
Can you imagine if Google was held to the precepts of net neutrality on their censorship of content?
Well, to be the devil's devil's advocate, isn't this an arguably *good* thing in support of non-net-neutrality? If ISPs could throttle tracking domains, or spam emailers, wouldn't that be an unadulterated good for the hundreds of millions of people who might not be running the latest firefox browser?
tl;dr - if consumers actually value different traffic differently, why should ISPs be prevented from prioritizing traffic they value, and throttling traffic they don't?
I get it, the ISP "value" might be different from the end consumer "value", but in the case of spam and tracking domains, it seems they align pretty well. In fact, it seems like ISP throttling based on consumer preferences might be the only useful check on the dominance of companies like google, facebook, amazon, etc.
Yeah, but what if you don't want government to get things done, and just want them to get (or stay) out of the way?
Gridlock is a feature, not a bug.
Mod parent up. TOS would fail SJW approval today because they didn't have Uhura give a lecture about white privilege, or have Sulu talk about how important gay marriage is. The last thing SJWs want is for us to actually treat everyone the same, no matter what their skin color, ear pointiness, sexual preference, or number of antennae - the whole point of social justice is to define one's identity through the trivial and pointless, so that we can "fight the power".
The big problem they have is that they became the power they were fighting against.
You're assuming that atmospheric CO2 levels are simply driven by unrelated sinks and sources.
The fact of the matter is that the CO2 cycle is actually highly integrated, with sinks and sources reacting to each other. There's good evidence that rather than temperature being driven by CO2 levels, it's the other way around, and both natural sinks and sources react to perturbations by compensating for them (sinking more when there is excess CO2, and sourcing more when there is a CO2 deficit).
Correlation is not causation.
That's simply not true. Our proxies of the past do not have the resolution nor the certainty required to make that kind of claim.
Proxies, with lower resolution (orders of magnitude less than our current daily and hourly temperature data, for example), and higher uncertainties, and of course, famously divergent with the modern record, simply cannot be seen as equivalent to direct instrumental observation.
Trees are not thermometers, and ice cores are not CO2-meters :)
Proxies come with significant uncertainty.
Perhaps you've heard of the "divergence" problem?
Or maybe even the resolution problem?
It is entirely unfounded to believe that we can make any sort of definitive claims about "unprecedented" by using proxies that have orders of magnitude less resolution than the modern instrumental record. "sub-decadal" resolution simply cannot be apples-to-apples compared to daily or hourly instrumental temperature data. Particularly when you filter your data to exclude the Holocene Optimum or the MWP :)
But, those aren't facts. You're conflating observable fact with your personal belief system.
The oceans are warming. We don't have any sort of accurate data to say that it is unprecedented.
Global average air temperatures are warming (mostly on the "higher lows" side). We don't have any sort of accurate data to say that this is unprecedented.
Polar icecaps are both melting and refreezing. We don't have any sort of accurate data to say that this is unprecedented.
CO2 in the atmosphere is rising. We don't have any sort of accurate data to say that this is unprecedented.
What you are doing is assuming that *proxies* are accurate representations, without any sort of uncertainty. And your assumptions do not make for facts.
Mod parent up - foreign propaganda can consist of genuine emails, and local propaganda can consist of faked national guard documents.
Truth is not something that is given to you, it is something you need to claw for with great personal effort.
...and how do we know that CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc aren't the very kind of foreign propaganda trolls the article mentions, trying to discredit our own independent media outlets?
"Everything you know is wrong." - Weird Al