But since AGW doesn't require any correlation, your theories are as rubbish as usual
So, recap:
1) it doesn't matter if GCMs are falsified, CAGW remains non-falsifiable; 2) astrology is non-falsifiable; 3) CAGW doesn't even require correlation to be true.
Consider yourself called out *again* on your lies, misinformation and scaremongering:)
apparently, the null hypothesis is chosen by whoever calls 'dibs' on it...
Our warmist friends would like to believe so, but sadly, the null hypothesis is simply an assertion that two phenomena have no correlation, or more specifically, one does not have causation to the other (even if they are correlated).
But hey, if you follow dbIII's logic, all science is simply "show me a better model and I'll use it":) It's like watching astrologers compete with who can get the most accurate horoscope:)
which is utter bullshit already proven wrong by the rejection of models over time for more correct models as freshly collected data is matched to predictions from models.
What you're saying is that your central conceit (that humans are causing catastrophic global warming), can adapt to *any* observation simply by tweaking the models a bit. You can stretch these models in an unlimited fashion, and never be wrong about your initial premise.
Now you are asking for my help in constructing a method to prove your assertion. That's ironic.
I'm pointing out just how silly your asserted method for proving completeness is - you're asking someone to prove a negative.
(1) You haven't successfully falsified the theory of CO2 as a climate driver
(2) You think that the theory of CO2 as a climate driver is falsifiable, in contradiction to you explicit statements. Can you explain this contradiction? If not, why are you lying?
You misunderstand again - if you're going to use NOAA 2008 as an example of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming being falsifiable, then it has been falsified, and we can move on with our lives, and I'll cheerfully admit I was wrong about CAGW being falsifiable.
On the other hand, if you're going to insist that NOAA 2008 isn't falsified, then you should cheerfully admit that you haven't proven me wrong about CAGW being non-falsifiable:)
I repeat, if in you mind you think that the NOAA 2008 model has been falsified by an observation yet you claim that it cannot be falsified then you are lying.
Do you deny that the NOAA 2008 claimed that their models would be excluded at the 95% confidence level if a period of 15 years of statistically insignificant warming was observed? Do you deny that we've observed 15 years of statistically insignificant warming?
Are you holding onto the last 5%?
Is all unfalsified science, the big bang theory, evolution, Thermodynamics, Quantum Theory, Newtons Laws of Motion - are these theorys automatically NOT science, because they haven't been falsified, despite attempts to do so?
All of those have falsifiable hypothesis statements. CAGW does not. Astrology does not.
2. The NOAA model has been falsified not the theories that the underpin the model. Unless you want to claim that the falsification of one model will falsify the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Then you've made my point, and we'll end on that - all of your models are red herrings, the accuracy of which is irrelevant to your central conceit of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. You use them as proof of your premise, but when they are falsified, your premise withstands any damage at all.
You have many models, which you claim can be specifically falsified, but your CAGW hypothesis is not falsifiable, nor does it have any necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
Your lies, misinformation, and scaremongering has been called out again, sir:)
So, if an astrologist told you that, you'd feel compelled to present a model of horoscopes better than they had?
Really?
Science is not a competition between a favored hypothesis, and someone else's favored hypothesis - it is a competition between the *null hypothesis*, and ones favored hypothesis.
But put another way, how much better would the model have to be before you accepted your premise falsified? For example, you have GCM "CO2 Drives Temperature", that deviates from observations by 1C. Someone else creates a GCM "ENSO Drive Temperature", that deviates from observations by 0.99999C.
Are you now ready to admit falsification? What happens when you hard code something into your model, and now it's only 0.88888C off? Does this competition keep going for two competing hypotheses, until finally someone hits *exactly* the observed temperatures? What happens if two competing models *tie*?
Model making can be a fun business, but it is a *tool* of science, and without a falsifiable hypothesis statement, it is simply astrological navel gazing. As someone who watched the moon landing, you should know better.
Because without a falsifiable hypothesis statement, you can observe *anything*, and insist that you're still right. It's as simple as "heads I win, tails you lose".
They have their models, they have what the models indicate and they don't need to pander to a bunch of luddites attempting to confuse the issue on idealogical grounds.
Astrologists have unfalsifiable models too. Do you consider astrology science?
Also I'm wondering who's fed you the "falsifiable hypothesis statement" technobabble
Such a search would only find papers mentioning falsifiability - since it's not common practice to do so, the only conceivable way for you to prove your hypothesis: Scientific theories indicating that human CO2 emissions are going to cause catastrophic global warming are not falsifiable would be to examine each paper in detail i.e. Provide details of each experiment and how it avoids falsification.
So, what you're essentially asking for is "please, search all the literature, quote all the literature, and show that it avoids falsification". Much like say, an astrologist might say, "please, search every horoscope, quote every horoscope, and show that it avoids falsification":)
Clever, but not convincing:)
Here you attempt to falsify the underlying theory of CO2 forcing : No they don't. If CO2 is going up, and temperature is going down, then we're not getting any of this magical "further warming". CO2 and global average temperature are decoupled in the ice core record by a significant amount of time, and CO2 is on the *wrong* side to be a significant driver.
And you responded to this inversion of cause and effect by saying that it wasn't a falsification, even if observed:) Again, if your hypothesis can respond to any observation with "yeah, but our central conceit still stands", then it's not falsifiable:)
Here you attempt to falsify a specific climate model: NOAA 2008 paper identified a clear falsification (15 years of no statistically significant warming)
And again, if your trusted authorities *specify* a falsification, and then *observe* it, but still insist they haven't been falsified, doesn't it mean that they didn't start off with a falsifiable hypothesis, and they were just lying when they said they'd accept some specific observation as a falsification?
What don't you get about that?
I haven't drawn any conclusions about that actual state of the NOAA model with respect to falsification: except that if it has been falsified, or if you have attempted to falsify it (unsuccessfully), or if you accept as credible attempts to falsify it, you are effectively lying when you say that the model can't be falsified.
Okay, so to recap, if catastrophic anthropogenic global warming has been falsified (i.e., NOAA models have failed their test, an therefore we can now consider the entire central conceit of human CO2 emissions driving catastrophic climate change as void), and you cheerfully accept that, then I'm happy to be proven wrong that CAGW is non-falsifiable.
On the other hand, if you continue to insist that the central conceit of CAGW is still true, no matter what the NOAA paper said about observations that would refute their central conceit, then you can't expect me to give up my assertion that CAGW is non-falsifiable.
So, has CAGW been falsified? Yes or no will do:)
If I demanded a citation for something offtopic, or for something which you hadn't asserted, then yes, you would be well within you rights to say that that was irrelevant.
You are a warmist liar, misinformer and scaremongerer, and your inability to provide a quoted necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is *directly* on topic. You have been called out for your lies and misinformation, and your inability to provide a falsifiable hypothesis statement is certainly relevant.
I'm left with no other reasonable scenario that you have not, in fact, ever seen a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of CAGW, and you are talking out of your hat. Thusly, I call you out:)
You mistake me. I meant that I don't exclude astrology from the burden of proof requirement:- as becomes clear if you read
Put up or shut up boy genius - what makes you so much better than all of them?
None of the warmist climate scientists, of any tangential sort, have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
You can't do science without falsifiability.
I obviously did not claim that but instead took issue with you pretending that an entire field of science is lying.
So, to be clear, you accept the premise that science requires falsifiability, but you cannot cite or quote an *actual* falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming?
How old are you then manchild?
It's amusing you think I'm younger than you:)
Look, the bottom line is this - you trust a bunch of experts, and you've done so without actually seeing a falsifiable hypothesis statement of their central conceit. My bet is that you've already googled for some skepticalscience rebuttal to the "where is your falsifiable hypothesis" critique, and failed to find it - even though they've apparently been able to find some sort of rebuttal to other critiques.
I think if you're honest with yourself, you'll find that no matter how much searching you do, you won't find a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. And that means the people you have trusted to do science have indeed been lying to you.
If you are tempted to post warmist lies, misinformation and scaremongering, then you will be called on it. So get used to it.:)
That is both mocking, and counter-trolling, in case you're wondering:)
The time has now come for you to provide proof for your assertion: Scientific theories indicating that the current warming event is in part due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are all unfalsifiable.
No, you got that wrong, again:)
Scientific theories indicating that human CO2 emissions are going to cause catastrophic global warming all fail the required test of falsifiability.
Since this is the science game, my hypothesis requires falsifiability - and voila! It has it! All we need to do is find a *single* instance of a peer reviewed paper that contains a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, and BAM, we've got our falsification.
I've also gone to a very intelligent slashdot warmist, and spent the last few days looking for a falsifiable hypothesis statement, and after dozens of comments, the falsification of *my* theory hasn't been found.
So far, so good:)
In our previous conversation you admitted that the science of AGW was falsifiable
I did no such thing. You've clearly misinterpreted something terribly, again.
Cite, or it didn't happen.
firstly, the underlying principles (CO2 as a greenhouse gas) and later, that models themselves were falsifiable.
CO2 as a greenhouse gas is *necessary* for AGW to be true, but surely it isn't sufficient. If anything, it is only one of *many* things that must be true for AGW to be true.
Furthermore, as you've already illustrated, despite NOAA 2008 claiming it would be falsified if there were 15 years of no statistically significant warming, the warmists (you included), simply discard inconvenient data:) If you won't accept a previously stated observation as a falsification, then *obviously* you're holding onto a non-falsifiable hypothesis, aren't you?:)
There's no reason to think that the relevant hypotheses do NOT exist.
Sure there is - a survey of the literature fails to show any necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, and furthermore, a true believer, such as yourself, with gobs of intelligence and motivated reasoning, can't find *some* SS page that refutes this critique.
If you, an intelligent and motivated reasoner, cannot quote a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement after *dozens* of comments, it's a pretty good bet there isn't one:)
Have you seen it? - Irrelevant.
Of course it's relevant - if you've seen it then at least you're speaking from some empirical basis. If you *haven't* seen it, then you're talking out of your hat:)
Can you quote it? - Irrelevant.
Really? So, if say, for example, I had rock solid proof that there were emails from climate scientists admitting that they had exaggerated their findings, and failed to have any falsifiability in their hypotheses, I could just respond to your request for that citation with "irrelevant"?:)
Yes. It is a massive multi-disciplinary area that inspired the national geophysical year of 1957 and a pile of other efforts before and since.
So you're talking about anyone who is tangentially touching climate, not specifically climatologists?
Are you surprised that the survey which deemed a 97% consensus got there on the basis of 75 responses out of 10,000+ surveys sent?
I'm not the one putting himself up as a teenage genius better than any expert on the planet.
You're so cute:) You think you're getting schooled by a teenager:)
Hate to break it to you, but if I'm not both older and wiser than you, I'm definitely wiser:)
But that is not what is happening, which is why I'm calling your lie that suggests so the utter bullshit that it is.
I'm sorry, but it's bullshit when you claim that falsifiability is not the cornerstone of the scientific method, and it's bullshit when you blithely assume that your trusted experts have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming sitting in their pockets that you've never seen.
Your climate astrologists who insist that human CO2 emissions are going to cause catastrophic global climate change on any time scale are charlatans, frauds, and either you're being willingly ignorant, or you've got a serious problem with trusting people who don't deserve that trust.
The fact is that highly intelligent and motivated people can always find ways to rationalize observations to fit their positions - we can protect ourselves from this kind of foolishness by insisting on falsifiability.
I know what my falsifiable hypothesis is - do you know yours?:)
First you said it was mocking, now you say you are "counter-trolling".
You can consider them synonyms:)
If you are tempted to post warmist lies, misinformation and scaremongering, then you will be called on it. So get used to it.
Yes, of course, it's all a vast conspiracy by scientists to cover up the truth.
There again, you go and start lying and feeding misinformation - the warmist "scientists" are nothing of the sort, because they can't even fulfill the most basic requirements of the scientific method - falsifiability.
Consider yourself called on it *again*:)
Why did you not provide the citation, when called on it?
I did. You claim here that your memory, has in its depths, a citation of a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming:
"[me]So you assert (without proof). And unfortunately for you, I do happen to possess a good memory"
Are you going to assert that you meant something entirely different when you said you "possess a good memory"? You can clear all this up - do you believe there exists a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming? Have you seen it? Can you quote it?
The way we can tell astrology and catastrophic anthropogenic global warming aren't *really* science? Neither of them has a falsifiable hypothesis. The burden of proof rests with you. Are you unable to provide proof of your assertion?
Now, are you going to argue that Popper got it wrong, and that it's possible to do science without falsifiability? If so, how do you exclude astrology?
Heck, *do* you exclude astrology?
What part of you have provided me with no compelling reason to respond to your assertion do you not understand?
And there you go - I called it:)
"Oh, wait, you'll just say "I'm not here to convince you" or "I won't do research for you":)"
So, recap, you're intelligent, motivated, unable after dozens of comments to cite a single peer reviewed necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, and you have thusly been called out for your warmist lies, misinformation and scaremongering:)
Well, I'd start by actually visiting Japan - the culture there is incredibly different than anything you can find in the US. I mean, just all the judeo-christian crap that we all take for granted here, is just completely absent. And make no doubt - it's not all good either, there's a pernicious racism there and a great deal of misogyny, but you simply cannot look at that culture and assume that you have controlled for its effect in crime.
But if you want an enumeration:
1) homogeneity - literally, no "eye color/hair color" on driver's licenses. fix that correlation by only comparing to other homogenous populations (excludes a *bunch* of the US, although there are certainly enclaves here and there)
2) judeo-christian background. fix that correlation by only comparing non-judeochristianmuslim populations (excludes a *bunch* of the US again)
3) height and weight. Just for fun to see if there's any sort of relationship between crime and either size, or proportional size.
I know, it could be that American exceptionalism means that there is no good comparison in other countries (either with more guns or less guns), but there you have it.
Does trolling substitute for being able to provide citations, in your mind?
Call it "counter-trolling":)
And I'm still waiting for you to provide a citation to a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming:)
How exactly will you win the hearts and minds of scientists over to your theory by trolling?
Here's a perfect example of your lies and misinformation - the "scientists" you speak of are nothing of the sort, since they haven't even fulfilled the most basic requirement of science - falsifiability. Consider yourself called on it:)
[me]So you assert (without proof). And unfortunately for you, I do happen to possess a good memory
You claim here that your memory, has in its depths, a citation of a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming...or did you mean something else?
Here - you can clear all this up - do you believe there exists a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming? Have you seen it? Can you quote it?
Oh, wait, you'll just say "I'm not here to convince you" or "I won't do research for you":)
Nevermind:)
So you assert (without proof).
Your continual inability to quote said falsifiable hypothesis seems like pretty good proof at this point:) You're intelligent, motivated, and yet unable to provide a quotation from any peer reviewed literature. Is it that you've misplaced your references? Perhaps you've never seen this falsifiable hypothesis statement?
Consider yourself called on your lies and misinformation again:)
So at this point your ability to reply has shrunk down to merely parroting me,
We call it "mocking you":) Your grand claim to call out misinformation and lies is so juicy with hypocrisy, it truly shows how a motivated and intelligent person can completely ignore any evidence which refutes their premise.
Provide a citation in which I made that assertion.
"I'm not your helper. I feel no compulsion to look up scientific papers on your behalf. Your constant stream of baseless assertions certainly don't compel me to do anything"
You said this in reply to yet another one of my assertions that you could not quote any necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement from any peer reviewed literature regarding catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. It was an empty response, and hence my valid critique of your use of false equivalence - your assertions that falsifiable hypothesis statements for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming exist are not the equivalent of an *actual* *quoted* falsifiable hypothesis statement.
Here's an example of some other bits of your lies and misinformation:
"However, if you try to counter the objective facts of climate change with rhetoric, ad-hominem and misdirection, you can expect others to call you on it. Myths are not the equal of facts."
The objective fact of climate change is that it has always happened, and that there is no necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming aka "climate change". Your myth, that such a falsifiable hypothesis statement exists, but you're too busy to look it up and quote it, is a lie and misinformation that deserves to be called out.
So, (again, mocking you), if you are tempted to post warmest lies, misinformation and scaremongering, then you will be called on it. So get used to it.:)
Newtown shows that guns wouldn't have worked if people had not been disarmed by a "gun-free" zone. Sadly, even though the rules of "gun-free" zones cause this kind of defenselessness, you'd rather have adults fight with staplers, and die, in the defense of their helpless charges.
Every law abiding adult in that school had two choices - hide, or die in an attempt to defend against this maniac.
There was a third choice that was taken away from them by the gun control nuts.
A world so different that it would be impossible to use a sharp pointy thing to say, hijack four airplanes, crash them into various buildings, and kill 3000 people?
Your fear of the tools used to commit violence is blinding you to the truly responsible parties - the maniacs and murderers who decide to go rampage.
Since you are pretending to be some sort of ubermenchen superior to hundreds of thousands of climate science
Did you mean "scientists"? Do you really think there are hundreds of thousands of climate scientists today? Do you remember the reference showing that the 97% figure was derived by only 75 responses out of 10,000?
I'm guessing you are a nineteen year old business studies student
I'm guessing that if you've ever listened to Feynman, or read Popper, you didn't understand them. Open question as to whether or not it was because you were too young or too old:)
But still, I'll offer the same deal - your age, education, credentials, government assistance, tax payments, and I'll tell you whatever you want to know about me:)
Stop hiding behind the "sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement" bullshit
It's not bullshit, it's the cornerstone of the scientific method. You simply cannot waltz in, say "I have this theory, and it works no matter what we observe", and expect people to accept it as science. Non-falsifiability is the hallmark of religion and astrology.
But hey, since you've outsourced your critical thinking to "hundreds of thousands of climate science[sic]", perhaps you simply weren't educated well enough in the scientific method. Or are you willfully discarding the cornerstone of the scientific method?
...understanding poorly spoken and written english. Train yourself to interpret heavy accents, and tortured english, and you'll have an incredibly valuable skill in this world where critical IT infrastructure gets outsourced and offshored to people who don't know English that well, and have a terrible time trying to pronounce it.
And make no doubt - this *is* a skill. You can sit and be frustrated by someone's harsh accent, or you can pay close attention and learn how to compensate for their language weakness.
False equivalence fallacy - your assertions are not the equivalent of verifiable, repeatable and peer reviewed science
False equivalence fallacy - your assertions that falsifiable hypothesis statements for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming exist are not the equivalent of an *actual* *quoted* falsifiable hypothesis statement.
If you post warmist lies and misinformation, you will be called on it, and thusly, here I am:)
My bet is that yet again, you'll blithely assert that showing an example of a falsifiable hypothesis statement is not your responsibility, despite your faith that they exist somewhere out there:) Your inability to provide such a quote is further consistent evidence of your warmist lies and misinformation:)
Claiming that someone else is practicing a fallacy, when in fact the fallacy is on your part (false equivalence, burden of proof) is a clever tactic, but thoroughly unconvincing:)
As I had surmised, you have commented yet again without quoting a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. While you seem to feel that this burden of proof is inappropriate to set upon your shoulders, one would think that by this time, a motivated and intelligent person as yourself would have been able to find the refutation of my assertion if any such falsifiable hypothesis existed. And thus, my conjecture becomes stronger:)
So, let's do some modeling - we'll change the names to protect the innocent:
An believer in astrology has read many astrologer experts over the decades, trusts them deeply, and knows that they have complex models for astrological charts, incorporating all kinds of empirical observations of constellations, planets, and even smaller heavenly bodies. The believer is fully convinced that because of the complex models that are reinforced by so much consistent evidence in the behavior of people under certain astrological signs, that astrology is in fact a scientific pursuit.
A skeptic of astrology, who has read and understood Karl Popper, challenges the believer to present a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement to show that astrology actually contains the required falsifiability of the scientific method.
What possible things could the believer do to respond, since we, the uninterested and neutral observers, know that no such falsifiable hypothesis exists?
Maybe they could assert that the skeptic needs to disprove astrology? Maybe they could assert that the skeptic simply doesn't know enough about astrology models and details to comment?
There's one thing they absolutely *cannot* do - they cannot provide a falsifiable hypothesis statement that doesn't exist.
Now, if you presented this model to a believer in astrology, what do you think they would do to defend themselves? We know they can't provide a falsifiable hypothesis statement, but will they imply that one exists but they're just too busy to bother looking it up? Will they argue against the requirement of falsifiability in the scientific method? Or maybe they'll just ignore the model, and continue asserting the skeptic needs to prove a negative, or become ambiguously "more informed"?:)
Quick puzzle kid, who is more dubious, a guy that writes suduko puzzles for a living but calls himself a scientist or a real scientist with published peer reviewed work?
The one with a clear necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement. I have no reason to trust either of them blindly.
As for your question, it was answered before you asked it.
You've already commented as to your age, education, credentials, government assistance, tax payments, and inability to understand the word "falsifiable"?
Perhaps you've heard of "proving a negative"?:) Yes, we've got a large pdf here of every single instance of climate science, and I can provide it to you, you can read through it, and thereby verify that all climate science is unfalsifiable:)/sarc
Really? Look, all you have to do is show a *single* instance of a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. And you still, after so many comments, haven't been able to quote a *single* one. Is it because you're unable to? Simply unwilling to?
How many peer-reviewed warmist papers have any falsifiable hypothesis stated within them, do you think? 10%? 20%? 50%? Or is it so vanishingly rare that a highly motivated and intelligent person such as yourself would have to spend years researching it?:)
You're asserting that fairies (falsifiable hypothesis statements of CAGW) live in our gardens (the sum total of all climate science). You haven't shown me a single one, but insist that unless I can disprove that they are there, I must accept them as existent.
If my assertion that warmist climate science is unfalsifiable is so trivial to refute, please, by all means, quote the refutation directly. Or, you can respond once again, trying to shift the burden of proof, failing to provide a single falsifiable hypothesis statement.
Nobody who has any knowledge of science will abandon scientific principle, the scientific method, and peer reviewed and falsifiable findings on the basis of an assertion by a guy on the internet.
You have yet to provide any evidence that you have seen, or know of, any falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. This is an obvious abandonment of the scientific method on your part, to simply assert that a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement exists somewhere out in the ether without being able to directly quote it.
You continue to fail to provide either your own falsifiable hypothesis statement, nor any other trusted expert of yours. And the more you fail to do that, with every reply, you make my position stronger:)
So, how many more times will you *claim* that there is a falsifiable hypothesis out there without actually quoting it? Two more times? Three more times? How long will you simply duck the issue, and claim that somewhere, out there, lives a mystical and magical falsifiable hypothesis of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming that simply cannot be spoken aloud?:)
Slashdot Mirror
So, recap:
1) it doesn't matter if GCMs are falsified, CAGW remains non-falsifiable;
2) astrology is non-falsifiable;
3) CAGW doesn't even require correlation to be true.
Consider yourself called out *again* on your lies, misinformation and scaremongering :)
Our warmist friends would like to believe so, but sadly, the null hypothesis is simply an assertion that two phenomena have no correlation, or more specifically, one does not have causation to the other (even if they are correlated).
But hey, if you follow dbIII's logic, all science is simply "show me a better model and I'll use it" :) It's like watching astrologers compete with who can get the most accurate horoscope :)
What you're saying is that your central conceit (that humans are causing catastrophic global warming), can adapt to *any* observation simply by tweaking the models a bit. You can stretch these models in an unlimited fashion, and never be wrong about your initial premise.
This is the textbook definition of astrology :)
I'm pointing out just how silly your asserted method for proving completeness is - you're asking someone to prove a negative.
You misunderstand again - if you're going to use NOAA 2008 as an example of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming being falsifiable, then it has been falsified, and we can move on with our lives, and I'll cheerfully admit I was wrong about CAGW being falsifiable.
On the other hand, if you're going to insist that NOAA 2008 isn't falsified, then you should cheerfully admit that you haven't proven me wrong about CAGW being non-falsifiable :)
Do you deny that the NOAA 2008 claimed that their models would be excluded at the 95% confidence level if a period of 15 years of statistically insignificant warming was observed? Do you deny that we've observed 15 years of statistically insignificant warming?
Are you holding onto the last 5%?
All of those have falsifiable hypothesis statements. CAGW does not. Astrology does not.
Then you've made my point, and we'll end on that - all of your models are red herrings, the accuracy of which is irrelevant to your central conceit of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. You use them as proof of your premise, but when they are falsified, your premise withstands any damage at all.
You have many models, which you claim can be specifically falsified, but your CAGW hypothesis is not falsifiable, nor does it have any necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
Your lies, misinformation, and scaremongering has been called out again, sir :)
So, if an astrologist told you that, you'd feel compelled to present a model of horoscopes better than they had?
Really?
Science is not a competition between a favored hypothesis, and someone else's favored hypothesis - it is a competition between the *null hypothesis*, and ones favored hypothesis.
But put another way, how much better would the model have to be before you accepted your premise falsified? For example, you have GCM "CO2 Drives Temperature", that deviates from observations by 1C. Someone else creates a GCM "ENSO Drive Temperature", that deviates from observations by 0.99999C.
Are you now ready to admit falsification? What happens when you hard code something into your model, and now it's only 0.88888C off? Does this competition keep going for two competing hypotheses, until finally someone hits *exactly* the observed temperatures? What happens if two competing models *tie*?
Model making can be a fun business, but it is a *tool* of science, and without a falsifiable hypothesis statement, it is simply astrological navel gazing. As someone who watched the moon landing, you should know better.
Because without a falsifiable hypothesis statement, you can observe *anything*, and insist that you're still right. It's as simple as "heads I win, tails you lose".
Astrologists have unfalsifiable models too. Do you consider astrology science?
Well, if you watched the moon landing, perhaps you were too young to read Karl Popper's 1963 article: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html
So, what you're essentially asking for is "please, search all the literature, quote all the literature, and show that it avoids falsification". Much like say, an astrologist might say, "please, search every horoscope, quote every horoscope, and show that it avoids falsification" :)
Clever, but not convincing :)
And you responded to this inversion of cause and effect by saying that it wasn't a falsification, even if observed :) Again, if your hypothesis can respond to any observation with "yeah, but our central conceit still stands", then it's not falsifiable :)
And again, if your trusted authorities *specify* a falsification, and then *observe* it, but still insist they haven't been falsified, doesn't it mean that they didn't start off with a falsifiable hypothesis, and they were just lying when they said they'd accept some specific observation as a falsification?
What don't you get about that?
Okay, so to recap, if catastrophic anthropogenic global warming has been falsified (i.e., NOAA models have failed their test, an therefore we can now consider the entire central conceit of human CO2 emissions driving catastrophic climate change as void), and you cheerfully accept that, then I'm happy to be proven wrong that CAGW is non-falsifiable.
On the other hand, if you continue to insist that the central conceit of CAGW is still true, no matter what the NOAA paper said about observations that would refute their central conceit, then you can't expect me to give up my assertion that CAGW is non-falsifiable.
So, has CAGW been falsified? Yes or no will do :)
You are a warmist liar, misinformer and scaremongerer, and your inability to provide a quoted necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is *directly* on topic. You have been called out for your lies and misinformation, and your inability to provide a falsifiable hypothesis statement is certainly relevant.
I'm left with no other reasonable scenario that you have not, in fact, ever seen a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of CAGW, and you are talking out of your hat. Thusly, I call you out :)
None of the warmist climate scientists, of any tangential sort, have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
You can't do science without falsifiability.
So, to be clear, you accept the premise that science requires falsifiability, but you cannot cite or quote an *actual* falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming?
It's amusing you think I'm younger than you :)
Look, the bottom line is this - you trust a bunch of experts, and you've done so without actually seeing a falsifiable hypothesis statement of their central conceit. My bet is that you've already googled for some skepticalscience rebuttal to the "where is your falsifiable hypothesis" critique, and failed to find it - even though they've apparently been able to find some sort of rebuttal to other critiques.
I think if you're honest with yourself, you'll find that no matter how much searching you do, you won't find a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. And that means the people you have trusted to do science have indeed been lying to you.
If you are tempted to post warmist lies, misinformation and scaremongering, then you will be called on it. So get used to it. :)
That is both mocking, and counter-trolling, in case you're wondering :)
No, you got that wrong, again :)
Scientific theories indicating that human CO2 emissions are going to cause catastrophic global warming all fail the required test of falsifiability.
Since this is the science game, my hypothesis requires falsifiability - and voila! It has it! All we need to do is find a *single* instance of a peer reviewed paper that contains a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, and BAM, we've got our falsification.
So how would we go about finding this falsification? Well, I've searched the literature - nothing in the first 300 hits here have any such falsifiable hypothesis statement - http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=catastrophic+anthropogenic+global+warming+falsifiability&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5
I've also gone to a very intelligent slashdot warmist, and spent the last few days looking for a falsifiable hypothesis statement, and after dozens of comments, the falsification of *my* theory hasn't been found.
So far, so good :)
I did no such thing. You've clearly misinterpreted something terribly, again.
Cite, or it didn't happen.
CO2 as a greenhouse gas is *necessary* for AGW to be true, but surely it isn't sufficient. If anything, it is only one of *many* things that must be true for AGW to be true.
Furthermore, as you've already illustrated, despite NOAA 2008 claiming it would be falsified if there were 15 years of no statistically significant warming, the warmists (you included), simply discard inconvenient data :) If you won't accept a previously stated observation as a falsification, then *obviously* you're holding onto a non-falsifiable hypothesis, aren't you? :)
Sure there is - a survey of the literature fails to show any necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, and furthermore, a true believer, such as yourself, with gobs of intelligence and motivated reasoning, can't find *some* SS page that refutes this critique.
If you, an intelligent and motivated reasoner, cannot quote a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement after *dozens* of comments, it's a pretty good bet there isn't one :)
Of course it's relevant - if you've seen it then at least you're speaking from some empirical basis. If you *haven't* seen it, then you're talking out of your hat :)
Really? So, if say, for example, I had rock solid proof that there were emails from climate scientists admitting that they had exaggerated their findings, and failed to have any falsifiability in their hypotheses, I could just respond to your request for that citation with "irrelevant"? :)
We'll just go with the mos
So you're talking about anyone who is tangentially touching climate, not specifically climatologists?
Are you surprised that the survey which deemed a 97% consensus got there on the basis of 75 responses out of 10,000+ surveys sent?
You're so cute :) You think you're getting schooled by a teenager :)
Hate to break it to you, but if I'm not both older and wiser than you, I'm definitely wiser :)
I'm sorry, but it's bullshit when you claim that falsifiability is not the cornerstone of the scientific method, and it's bullshit when you blithely assume that your trusted experts have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming sitting in their pockets that you've never seen.
Your climate astrologists who insist that human CO2 emissions are going to cause catastrophic global climate change on any time scale are charlatans, frauds, and either you're being willingly ignorant, or you've got a serious problem with trusting people who don't deserve that trust.
The fact is that highly intelligent and motivated people can always find ways to rationalize observations to fit their positions - we can protect ourselves from this kind of foolishness by insisting on falsifiability.
I know what my falsifiable hypothesis is - do you know yours? :)
You can consider them synonyms :)
If you are tempted to post warmist lies, misinformation and scaremongering, then you will be called on it. So get used to it.
There again, you go and start lying and feeding misinformation - the warmist "scientists" are nothing of the sort, because they can't even fulfill the most basic requirements of the scientific method - falsifiability.
Consider yourself called on it *again* :)
I did. You claim here that your memory, has in its depths, a citation of a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming:
"[me]So you assert (without proof). And unfortunately for you, I do happen to possess a good memory"
Are you going to assert that you meant something entirely different when you said you "possess a good memory"? You can clear all this up - do you believe there exists a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming? Have you seen it? Can you quote it?
Absolutely - http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html
Now, are you going to argue that Popper got it wrong, and that it's possible to do science without falsifiability? If so, how do you exclude astrology?
Heck, *do* you exclude astrology?
And there you go - I called it :)
"Oh, wait, you'll just say "I'm not here to convince you" or "I won't do research for you" :)"
So, recap, you're intelligent, motivated, unable after dozens of comments to cite a single peer reviewed necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, and you have thusly been called out for your warmist lies, misinformation and scaremongering :)
The symmetry is quite pleasing, all in all :)
Well, I'd start by actually visiting Japan - the culture there is incredibly different than anything you can find in the US. I mean, just all the judeo-christian crap that we all take for granted here, is just completely absent. And make no doubt - it's not all good either, there's a pernicious racism there and a great deal of misogyny, but you simply cannot look at that culture and assume that you have controlled for its effect in crime.
But if you want an enumeration:
1) homogeneity - literally, no "eye color/hair color" on driver's licenses. fix that correlation by only comparing to other homogenous populations (excludes a *bunch* of the US, although there are certainly enclaves here and there)
2) judeo-christian background. fix that correlation by only comparing non-judeochristianmuslim populations (excludes a *bunch* of the US again)
3) height and weight. Just for fun to see if there's any sort of relationship between crime and either size, or proportional size.
I know, it could be that American exceptionalism means that there is no good comparison in other countries (either with more guns or less guns), but there you have it.
Mod parent up. There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Always be cautious when someone tries to get to a preconceived result by excluding data.
Call it "counter-trolling" :)
And I'm still waiting for you to provide a citation to a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming :)
Here's a perfect example of your lies and misinformation - the "scientists" you speak of are nothing of the sort, since they haven't even fulfilled the most basic requirement of science - falsifiability. Consider yourself called on it :)
You claim here that your memory, has in its depths, a citation of a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming...or did you mean something else?
Here - you can clear all this up - do you believe there exists a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming? Have you seen it? Can you quote it?
Oh, wait, you'll just say "I'm not here to convince you" or "I won't do research for you" :)
Nevermind :)
Your continual inability to quote said falsifiable hypothesis seems like pretty good proof at this point :) You're intelligent, motivated, and yet unable to provide a quotation from any peer reviewed literature. Is it that you've misplaced your references? Perhaps you've never seen this falsifiable hypothesis statement?
Consider yourself called on your lies and misinformation again :)
We call it "mocking you" :) Your grand claim to call out misinformation and lies is so juicy with hypocrisy, it truly shows how a motivated and intelligent person can completely ignore any evidence which refutes their premise.
"I'm not your helper. I feel no compulsion to look up scientific papers on your behalf. Your constant stream of baseless assertions certainly don't compel me to do anything"
You said this in reply to yet another one of my assertions that you could not quote any necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement from any peer reviewed literature regarding catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. It was an empty response, and hence my valid critique of your use of false equivalence - your assertions that falsifiable hypothesis statements for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming exist are not the equivalent of an *actual* *quoted* falsifiable hypothesis statement.
Here's an example of some other bits of your lies and misinformation:
"However, if you try to counter the objective facts of climate change with rhetoric, ad-hominem and misdirection, you can expect others to call you on it. Myths are not the equal of facts."
The objective fact of climate change is that it has always happened, and that there is no necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming aka "climate change". Your myth, that such a falsifiable hypothesis statement exists, but you're too busy to look it up and quote it, is a lie and misinformation that deserves to be called out.
So, (again, mocking you), if you are tempted to post warmest lies, misinformation and scaremongering, then you will be called on it. So get used to it. :)
Newtown shows that guns wouldn't have worked if people had not been disarmed by a "gun-free" zone. Sadly, even though the rules of "gun-free" zones cause this kind of defenselessness, you'd rather have adults fight with staplers, and die, in the defense of their helpless charges.
Every law abiding adult in that school had two choices - hide, or die in an attempt to defend against this maniac.
There was a third choice that was taken away from them by the gun control nuts.
A world so different that it would be impossible to use a sharp pointy thing to say, hijack four airplanes, crash them into various buildings, and kill 3000 people?
Your fear of the tools used to commit violence is blinding you to the truly responsible parties - the maniacs and murderers who decide to go rampage.
Did you mean "scientists"? Do you really think there are hundreds of thousands of climate scientists today? Do you remember the reference showing that the 97% figure was derived by only 75 responses out of 10,000?
I'm guessing that if you've ever listened to Feynman, or read Popper, you didn't understand them. Open question as to whether or not it was because you were too young or too old :)
But still, I'll offer the same deal - your age, education, credentials, government assistance, tax payments, and I'll tell you whatever you want to know about me :)
It's not bullshit, it's the cornerstone of the scientific method. You simply cannot waltz in, say "I have this theory, and it works no matter what we observe", and expect people to accept it as science. Non-falsifiability is the hallmark of religion and astrology.
But hey, since you've outsourced your critical thinking to "hundreds of thousands of climate science[sic]", perhaps you simply weren't educated well enough in the scientific method. Or are you willfully discarding the cornerstone of the scientific method?
...understanding poorly spoken and written english. Train yourself to interpret heavy accents, and tortured english, and you'll have an incredibly valuable skill in this world where critical IT infrastructure gets outsourced and offshored to people who don't know English that well, and have a terrible time trying to pronounce it.
And make no doubt - this *is* a skill. You can sit and be frustrated by someone's harsh accent, or you can pay close attention and learn how to compensate for their language weakness.
False equivalence fallacy - your assertions that falsifiable hypothesis statements for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming exist are not the equivalent of an *actual* *quoted* falsifiable hypothesis statement.
If you post warmist lies and misinformation, you will be called on it, and thusly, here I am :)
My bet is that yet again, you'll blithely assert that showing an example of a falsifiable hypothesis statement is not your responsibility, despite your faith that they exist somewhere out there :) Your inability to provide such a quote is further consistent evidence of your warmist lies and misinformation :)
Claiming that someone else is practicing a fallacy, when in fact the fallacy is on your part (false equivalence, burden of proof) is a clever tactic, but thoroughly unconvincing :)
As I had surmised, you have commented yet again without quoting a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. While you seem to feel that this burden of proof is inappropriate to set upon your shoulders, one would think that by this time, a motivated and intelligent person as yourself would have been able to find the refutation of my assertion if any such falsifiable hypothesis existed. And thus, my conjecture becomes stronger :)
So, let's do some modeling - we'll change the names to protect the innocent:
An believer in astrology has read many astrologer experts over the decades, trusts them deeply, and knows that they have complex models for astrological charts, incorporating all kinds of empirical observations of constellations, planets, and even smaller heavenly bodies. The believer is fully convinced that because of the complex models that are reinforced by so much consistent evidence in the behavior of people under certain astrological signs, that astrology is in fact a scientific pursuit.
A skeptic of astrology, who has read and understood Karl Popper, challenges the believer to present a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement to show that astrology actually contains the required falsifiability of the scientific method.
What possible things could the believer do to respond, since we, the uninterested and neutral observers, know that no such falsifiable hypothesis exists?
Maybe they could assert that the skeptic needs to disprove astrology?
Maybe they could assert that the skeptic simply doesn't know enough about astrology models and details to comment?
There's one thing they absolutely *cannot* do - they cannot provide a falsifiable hypothesis statement that doesn't exist.
Now, if you presented this model to a believer in astrology, what do you think they would do to defend themselves? We know they can't provide a falsifiable hypothesis statement, but will they imply that one exists but they're just too busy to bother looking it up? Will they argue against the requirement of falsifiability in the scientific method? Or maybe they'll just ignore the model, and continue asserting the skeptic needs to prove a negative, or become ambiguously "more informed"? :)
Let's see :)
The one with a clear necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement. I have no reason to trust either of them blindly.
You've already commented as to your age, education, credentials, government assistance, tax payments, and inability to understand the word "falsifiable"?
Fascinating. You really believe that, don't you?
Perhaps you've heard of "proving a negative"? :) Yes, we've got a large pdf here of every single instance of climate science, and I can provide it to you, you can read through it, and thereby verify that all climate science is unfalsifiable :) /sarc
Really? Look, all you have to do is show a *single* instance of a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. And you still, after so many comments, haven't been able to quote a *single* one. Is it because you're unable to? Simply unwilling to?
How many peer-reviewed warmist papers have any falsifiable hypothesis stated within them, do you think? 10%? 20%? 50%? Or is it so vanishingly rare that a highly motivated and intelligent person such as yourself would have to spend years researching it? :)
You're asserting that fairies (falsifiable hypothesis statements of CAGW) live in our gardens (the sum total of all climate science). You haven't shown me a single one, but insist that unless I can disprove that they are there, I must accept them as existent.
If my assertion that warmist climate science is unfalsifiable is so trivial to refute, please, by all means, quote the refutation directly. Or, you can respond once again, trying to shift the burden of proof, failing to provide a single falsifiable hypothesis statement.
I'll bet you do the latter :)
You have yet to provide any evidence that you have seen, or know of, any falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. This is an obvious abandonment of the scientific method on your part, to simply assert that a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement exists somewhere out in the ether without being able to directly quote it.
You continue to fail to provide either your own falsifiable hypothesis statement, nor any other trusted expert of yours. And the more you fail to do that, with every reply, you make my position stronger :)
So, how many more times will you *claim* that there is a falsifiable hypothesis out there without actually quoting it? Two more times? Three more times? How long will you simply duck the issue, and claim that somewhere, out there, lives a mystical and magical falsifiable hypothesis of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming that simply cannot be spoken aloud? :)
How old are you, and what various credentials have you gotten over the years?
Have you ever been on government assistance?
Have you ever paid taxes?
What part about the word "falsifiable" don't you understand?
I'm curious as to how you developed such unshakeable faith in dubious authorities...