You didn't read the cite? The one where it showed that the 97% claimed consensus came from a survey that sent out 10,000+ surveys, got 3000+ responses, and then discarded all but around 77 to claim that 75 people represented "97%"?
Seriously, give it a read - it's a silly trope that warmists have been using for ages, and for anyone who is actually *informed* as to how that 97% number was created can see that it was terribly manipulated.
So you accept my debunking of your most sacred "null hypothesis".
Far from it - you're either willfully misunderstanding the null hypothesis of climate change, or conflating it with your secondary null hypothesis "we must accept all articles that get past peer review as truth" (as if simply getting an article peer reviewed or published makes it the null hypothesis...how cute!).
There's no need for me to provide any falsifiable hypothesis - these have already been provided by climate science.
You're lying. Prove me wrong by quoting the falsifiable hypothesis you think "climate science" has provided.
I'm just arguing that experts exist and you are pushing some very odd opposite line that appears to be that it is not possible to have experts in the field of climate studies.
You can have experts in anything. There are experts in astrology. But no expert who walks around with a non-falsifiable hypothesis can claim to be doing science.
Do you believe your trusted experts have a falsifiable hypothesis statement? Can you quote it?
Let's try again. Have you completed High School and what age are you? At what point did we lose a generation to this mindless voodoo?
You're precious. You've been shown up by someone you think is younger and less worldly than you:)
Tell you what, provide your CV and age, and we'll talk:)
As for voodoo, you know that 97% of voodoo experts believe in voodoo too, right?:)
but it turns out I actually did by quoting the words of other above
I'm sorry, which quote are you talking about? It's not clear.
that bit where you ignored everything apart from a percentage then wrote some shit about sample size.
Oh, you mean that part where the whole "97% of climate scientists agree" trope, based on a cherrypicked selection of survey responses that totaled only 75 responses out of *thousands*?
Yeah, forget sample size, 75 people out of thousands is obviously 97% if you simply discard enough data:)
. If you want to assert that that science is wrong, you prove it is wrong.
And exactly how do you prove a non-falsifiable hypothesis wrong?:)
That's like asking you to win a game of "heads I win, tails you lose":)
If you want to argue something scientific, you are required to have a falsifiable hypothesis statement. Our default starting point is that scientific papers that are peer reviewed do not necessarily contain falsifiable hypotheses.
You are more than welcome to falsify my hypothesis by quoting from any peer reviewed paper you wish:)
However If I CAN tell that they are NOT "essentially religious arguments"
And how do you do that? A magic hat? A voice in your head? Really, simply claiming that your arguments from authority are justified by your own personal authority is just...well, sad.
The point of failure here is obvious - you have zero willingness to address the concept of falsifiability because it threatens your personal worldview. You have chosen to believe and trust in experts with credentials you find impressive, and when they are challenged you become defensive and emotional.
The fact of the matter is this - anyone who tells you that they have a theory that can't be proven wrong by any observations is feeding you a line of bull. Falsifiability is a *requirement* of the scientific method, period. All of your mouth frothing and cargo-cult science can't overcome that simple yet profound requirement.
In fact, my hypothesis (that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming has no falsifiable hypothesis), is a *perfect* example of science in action - it is indeed falsifiable. All you have to do is state, or quote a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, and my hypothesis is falsified.
The fact that after dozens of responses that you still can't find that quote, from any expert you choose to believe in, lends strength to my hypothesis, the same way trying really hard to find observations that falsify say, gravity, and not finding them, strengthens our confidence in the theory of gravity.
These are simply not even addressing the topic at hand.
Sure they are. You're confused about the line of argument which refutes your beliefs, and I'm explaining it to you. Your claims of certainty (by proxy at that), are unfounded because you simply haven't started the scientific method with a falsifiable hypothesis statement. Demanding that I provide my own personal alternative falsifiable hypothesis statement is a red-herring - you're not in competition with me, you're in competition with the null hypothesis.
1. You accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and therefore that the quantity of natural CO2 in the atmosphere plays a role in warming the atmosphere. However, you are absolutely certain that human emissions will not warm the atmosphere any further.
You're misstating my assertion. CO2 can be a greenhouse gas, and be related to the temperature of the planet, without human emissions playing any significant role. Are you stating that there is no possible scenario where human emissions can have a negligible effect?
Nevertheless you insist that all modelling must be wrong, without explanation.
I've made myself perfectly clear - GCM models which are supported by alarmists are non-falsifiable. More specifically, no observations of real world climate or CO2 would falsify their central conceit that is hard coded into them (i.e., that human CO2 emissions drive global average temperature).
As a case example of this kind of religious thinking, in 2008 the NOAA claimed that their models would fail at the 95% confidence level if a 15 year period of statistically insignificant warming was observed. We've had 16 years now. Now, do you accept that the central conceit is wrong, or do you hold onto the last 5%, or do you insist that some other ad hoc special pleading can be inserted to preserve your faith?
You say there was no conspiracy involved in this fraud, but cannot explain how the previous published results could have been unpublished.
GISS simply changed their data and didn't version control it. Do you deny that GISS has adjusted their data, and failed to provide any sort of version control for their previous values? Please, point me in the direction of the GISS git if you've got a URL.
4. Having claimed that climate models are not falsifiable, you then attempted to falsify one.
I asserted that NOAA claimed to have a falsifiable model, by specifying a falsification. Now that the falsification has been observed, instead of admitting the error of their central conceit, you remain faithful to the original model.
So, did you *really* consider the original model to be falsifiable? Or did you always have your ad hoc special pleading in your back pocket?:)
Your oblique references to scientific concepts focus on a fallacious use of "the" null hypothesis
And exactly what is fallacious about insisting that the null hypothesis is that human CO2 emissions have no relationship (causal or otherwise) with global average temperature? Please, be specific.
Or if it's just CO2 levels period, what is fallacious about insisting that the null hypothesis is that there is no causal relationship between CO2 and global average temperature?
You keep thinking that you've made some point, but gloss over the details.
6. You claim a natural forcing for the current warming event, but cannot explain what is doing the forcing. You claim that justifying this assertion is not your responsibility.
Eureka, you just may have gotten it! Before humanity, there were warming events. We cannot explain for all of these warming events what exactly was the forcing that caused them. But we know these were all natural (unless you want to bring ET or God into the picture). Of course nobo
You seem to believe the scientific method is simply done by a poll of credentialed experts. Just survey the people with degrees, or papers, or lab coats, and based on that poll, we have scientific fact.
But that isn't how science works - it's much more democratic than that. We start with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, and then *anyone*, no matter how lowly, who finds observations of falsification, can overturn the common wisdom.
Of course, without a falsifiable hypothesis, there can be no overturning dogma - it can survive *any* observation, and as Popper noted, this is a *weakness* not a *strength*.
At this point, it seems you've been reduced to frothing at the mouth, rather than trying to say, make an argument that falsifiability isn't required and explaining how you would show astrology is a pseudo-science. After all, 99% of credentialed astrologists believe that astrology is real, and that horoscopes are useful tools, and that their models are useful, and that astrology is in fact, scientific.
If you can't see that arguments based on authority are essentially religious arguments, then you have chosen not to grow up at all.
The august authorities of the scientific world once believed that non-whites were subhuman - they had all of the qualifications you could imagine, and the "science was settled", and the consensus was clear. But they were wrong. Terribly wrong.
Your worshipped authorities who believe in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (unnamed as they are), have no necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, and are preaching a religion, not practicing science.
So where is your "university degree in climatology, in all kinds of advanced chemistry and one thing or another" which trumps everything that the leading experts produce?
You see, it doesn't take artificial credentials to show that someone isn't using the scientific method - all one has to do is point out their lack of a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, and it is shown.
Demanding some sort of bestowed qualification is simply a religious proxy of authority.
Now, you may not quite understand that you're practicing a religion, but seriously - go look for the falsifiable hypothesis statement of the mentors you trust. Perhaps right now you simply assume that it is there, and feel put upon to produce it, but I assure you, it simply does not exist, and you can look for that yourself.
Of course, on the other hand, perhaps you don't believe that something needs to be falsifiable in order to be scientific, and that science can be done simply by trusting our betters...
You're the one claiming box cutters killed 3000 people. You avoided explaining flight 93. Please do so.
I'm not avoiding anything - if flight 93 had not fought off their hijackers, and they had managed to kill another couple of thousand, it would simply be worse off for box cutters, and we'd be able to claim they killed 6000 people.
The change is that now, when hijacked, the hijackers might just kill you as part of the plan...hence you fight back to the death. That renders another 9/11 completely moot.
Six adults fought back to the death in Connecticut. If only one of them had a firearm available to fight back, they could have saved the lives of 20 children.
You want kindergarteners and teachers to just fight back with crayons and pencils when they're attacked?
Whether in a gun safe or not, it's simply not credible to believe you can prevent crazies from getting weapons when they are so abundant.
Anything can be a weapon - even a box cutter. It is simply not credible to believe that you can prevent crazies from getting weapons even if you decide to outlaw a specific class of weapons.
And you want to put them in places where there are hundreds of kids.
Yes. Obviously declaring the school a "gun-free zone" only served to point out what a vulnerable target it was for the murderer.
So you can tell who among us are simply depressed and who are pyschopathic murderers?
It's a first line of defense, it's not perfect, but then again, that's why I support concealed carry. Yes, we might not always know ahead of time. My bet is that this particular psychopath just might have fit a profile where institutionalization was appropriate, but that's just one pass at the tree - the other pass is to allow adults to be safely armed to fight off nutbags like these.
So you're saying that a few kids dead is acceptable?
If you were under attack at that school, hearing the shots over the intercom, and you knew that if you pulled your concealed carry weapon, and tried to make a difference, that you might hit a child by accident, would you still idly sit by and let 20 children be murdered? How about if it wasn't your gun, but the janitor's...would you rather that person take the risk of hitting a child by accident, or would you want him to sit idly by and let 20 children be murdered?
Yes, anytime you confront someone with a firearm, there's a risk. But you ask any of the families of the 20 children who got shot up by this maniac if they would've been willing to have their child be collateral damage if the other 19 children had been saved, and I doubt you'd have any would say no.
Bottom line is this - guns can be used safely, carried responsibly, and can prevent tragedy. We cannot stop criminals from having weapons, no matter how draconian you'd like to make our society, and taking away firearms from law abiding citizens is a pointless gesture.
I'd be better off just guessing what the effect is - luckily I do not have to resort to that, owing to the raft of observations, experiments, and models done and built by scientists.
So again, the argument from authority:) You didn't even bother to ask for any sort of falsifiable hypothesis, cherry picked the authorities you'd believe, and blithely assert that magically, they are able to assert knowledge without any sort of falsifiability.
Yup, that sounds pretty religious to me:)
Have the effects of cloud cover and albedo changed post the industrial age?
Of course they have - they change all the time. Do you honestly think cloud cover and albedo has been constant throughout human history?
Anyway, you can just answer the question: So you agree that climate models can be falsified?
You haven't shown me one yet:)
Again, show me the *one* model that you believe represents your central conceit, which if in error regarding any predictions, will falsify your central conceit. Or do you once again insist that your central conceit is beyond reproach and falsifiability?
How do you know? You profess to be ignorant of the matter.
You mistake my assertion - I'm asserting that without a falsifiable hypothesis statement, *everyone* is ignorant of the matter. You seem to believe that you can simply get away with picking and choosing particular labcoat wearing "scientists" as expert authorities, and trust them without asking them for the most basic of scientific requirements - falsifiability.
You see, we're ignorant, and I know it. You still have faith, however:)
If I wanted to listen to liturgy, I would find a church.
You seem to have the SS liturgy down quite well:) Look, SS simply waves their hands and say, "oh, it's okay that CO2 lagged before, now it's leading and things have changed, so don't mind us":)
Really, that all you have? My God is bigger than yours?:)
Happy to: "a greenhouse effect is at work in the atmosphere, and that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas (Tyndall's work").
Wow, and somehow you took that statement of mine to mean that I predicted climate change? Neither the word "climate" or "change" is in that cite:)
CO2 is both sensitive to climate change AND a driver of climate change. These roles are (unfortunately) not mutually exclusive. This, young padawan, is what we call 'positive feedback'.
Don't know much about feedback loops, do you?:) Look, you assert CO2 has a positive feedback effect - yet CO2 hasn't driven climate, but has instead lagged it...doesn't that make it obvious to you that any positive feedback effect CO2 has is overwhelmed by other natural variation?
CO2 does not decide to behave differently when humans emit it, versus emissions from other natural sources. Any positive feedback effect it has is *obviously* insignificant when we can look back and see that it *lagged* temperature.
Did James Hansen travel back in time and and use a weather machine to change the temperature?
No, he simply changed the data after it was collected so that it would match his apocalyptic rantings:)
Are you seriously trying to defend his post-hoc manipulation of the data to create warming trends where they didn't exist before? Really? Is that how you do science?
But again, this assumes that you speak with some authority on the subject to which you have professed ignorance.
You misunderstand what I'm speaking about - I'm speaking about the scientific method, which I have pro
You completely misunderstand. Gravity has a falsifiable hypothesis. There are observations which would contradict the hypothesis of gravity as a weak force with a specific magnitude that varies with distance. There isn't any tweakable model with hard coded variables when it comes to gravity - there is a specific relationship that is asserted between mass, distance and force, and there are specific observations that would disprove it. It just so happens that despite hundreds of years of trying, nobody has found those falsifications, so we're relatively assured we've got it right.
The religion of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, on the other hand, simply takes a look at all observations and insists that they are "consistent with" their hypothesis. It's like putting forth a law of gravity that would accept 9.8m/s^2 as the gravitational force of the earth, as well as 8.8m/s^2, and 15m/s^2, or any other observed value.
You really have no idea how important falsifiability is, do you? You look at gravity, see something mysterious, and just assume that the mysterious catastrophic anthropogenic global warming thing is the same...fascinating.
Gun rights proponents have yet to come up with *any* solution that will work to stop this.
Sure I do. Concealed carry for school office staff, with sufficient regulation and training to avoid any accidents, compulsory firearms safety training starting in kindergarten, and the ability for a mother to commit her son to an institution when she realizes he's off his nut.
As for 3000 dead, that wasn't box cutters.
Yes, it was. Of course, the *key* ingredient was people committed enough to mass violence to pull it off, but if you're going to blame the tools used by murderers, then the point stands.
You claim that banning guns won't solve the problem.
That's a fact. The murderer was unable to get a legal weapon, so he *stole* the guns, murdered his mother, and illegally took the guns to a gun free zone (certainly something that gave him confidence that he wouldn't be stopped before his rampage was over). Laws didn't stop this maniac from doing what he did, but laws did prevent any of the staff at the school from having any legal chance at self defense.
Guns are dangerous, they're not toys, and people need to know how to properly handle them because avoidable accidents do happen. But psychopathic murderers who aren't institutionalized when they should be can't simply be avoided - they're the thing you should be trying to regulate, not the tools they happen to use.
Perhaps you missed the subject titles about moving goalposts
The goalposts haven't moved, you just didn't understand where they were in the first place. Before you reach the goal of using the scientific method, and being scientific, you start off with the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement. Yes, it isn't the easiest goal, but it's the requirement for science.
All of your hand waving and emotional contempt aside, the cold hard truth is this - you trust in people who don't deserve it, because they're not doing science, they're preaching a religion. You may not believe this to be true, but that doesn't stop it from being so. Not a single warmist on the planet has put forth a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, period.
You said it's not a real science and there never was a good model - I gave an obvious one proven for a century.
A fascinating interpretation of the conversation. Perhaps you didn't understand my critique of your "obvious one proven for a century"? Let me try and be clear:
1) The relationship between the SOI (derived from surface air pressure differences between Tahiti and Darwin), and the actual SO is a useful model for deciding when the SO is happening when you can't observe it directly. It does not have any predictive power as to the timing of the SO, it simply asserts a correlation.
2) The relationship between global average CO2 (derived from measurements on Mauna Loa, or ice core records), and the global average temperature observed may indeed have a relationship between each other. However, it does not have any predictive power as to the timing of any given global average temperature, it simply asserts a correlation.
So, while indeed one may be interested in what phase the SO is in by measuring the SOI, and that may be useful, you simply cannot say the same about the warmist models of CO2, if for no other reason that global average temperature has no useful function - it gives you no information about climactic patters (unlike the SO).
Also, why are you pretending not to understand the Lewandowsky quote
I understand it, I just find it amusing since he's a fraud:) He started with his conclusion (those darn skeptics are just conspiracy theorists in disguise), and then manipulated his data until he finally tried, with a straight face, to assert that he had shown something that was unsupportable by the numbers. He's not only a bad scientist, he's a bad mathematician:)
But hey, if you want to keep believing that Lewandowsky was attacked by some vast right-wing conspiracy, feel free:)
Your response was to attack HIM and not his words, and call him a LIAR.
Did you read the cites? The attack is against his words directly. He *literally* lied about his findings, about his methodology, and even played a shell game with his own department substituting a different study than the one he first proposed. He set out to create false data to imply a correlation between skeptics and conspiracy theories, and even his false data didn't support his hypothesis. Now, he may be an asshat, and a generally annoying person on top of all of that, but it is a *fact* that he is a liar, and that his study was baseless fraud. McIntyre spells it all out, if you take the time to read it.
apply critical reasoning skills for yourself and work out who in society you can trust and who you cannot.
That's the thing about science - it doesn't require trust. By adhering to the scientific method, and starting with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, you can simply derive things for yourself.
Bottom line, warmists who do not provide a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement are not practicing science no matter what their credentials, and believers in these warmists who do not *ask* for a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement are outsourcing their own rational thinking to people who don't deserve such trust.
Is it any wonder that when a young man snaps, he goes on a shooting rampage, if that's the prevalent attitude?
So to be clear, you believe that something triggered anger in this murderer (much as his actions triggered anger in me), and his acting out on the impulses created by that anger is a logical consequence of believing evil should be punished in a violent and painful manner? Perhaps his only real flaw was misunderstanding that innocent 5 year olds and teaching staff aren't evil, and that once you grant that premise, then all of his actions are rational?
At a certain point, despite my avid atheism, I believe there is such a thing as evil. It's not a rational thought, it's a belief, and I accept that, even though I generally eschew religion. Now today we live in a society that has muted to a great degree the idea of punishing evil - part of this is based on the judeo-christian roots of redemption (yes, I know they also have roots of vengeance, but nobody says religions have to be consistent).
So can we eliminate bloodlust from our society? Can we abandon entirely the idea of punishing evil with violence and pain? Would such a move stop psychopathic murderers like the one in Connecticut?
How about guns? Anything, Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?
Guns throw lead from point A to point B. You can use this to hunt for food, eliminate pests, target shoot for fun, target shoot for competition, target shoot for entertainment, defend yourself, attack others - just as a box cutter separates material that is stuck together, which can be used to hunt for food, eliminate pests, separate material for fun, separate material for competition, separate material for entertainment, defend yourself, attack others. Certainly the box cutter may find more use in more places (separating material is a common task, whereas throwing lead isn't quite so much), but if simply having another use makes something acceptable for you, what about a gun with a boxcutter on the front?
But again, if you hate guns, you've got to not only control the distribution of manufactured weapons, but also the manufacture of them. With 3D printing technology, anyone can print their own sword or gun, or sharp stick. Shall we therefore regulate all possible paths to throwing lead?
You can't kill 25 people in under a minute with a single box cutter.
But you can kill 3000 of them in the course of an hour with just a few of them.
And there WERE people on scene with guns and they still couldn't get to him fast enough.
"Zamudio was a CCW holder and had a weapon on his person, but arrived after the shooting had stopped and did not use the firearm to engage or threaten the gunman."
They didn't arrive until after the shooting stopped. If Zamudio had been there when it started, he might have been able to save at least one of the six victims, even if he couldn't have saved them all.
(that model is now also called the southern oscillation index)
Thank you, that makes it more clear what you're talking about. Now, how you can go from the southern oscillation index (which, is a measurement of the strength of the Southern Oscillation, specifically computed from fluctuations in the surface air pressure difference between Tahiti and Darwin, Australia), to a *model*, much less a model comparable to modern GCMs - that's a stretch.
I mean, at the best, you can claim to have found a relationship (a model) between surface air pressure in two different locations, and large ocean oscillation - as indeed there might be between say, a doubling of CO2 and temperature. But the direction of causality matters.
If we change the surface air pressure in Darwin and Tahiti, can we change the Southern Oscillation? Of course not. But you take it for granted that it is CO2 that drives temperature rather than the other way around.
As for Stephen Lewandowsky, are you really going to cite him as a reference?
Lewandowsky is a perfect example of a motivated reasoner, who is intelligent and educated, who forces observations to fit his preconceived hypothesis:)
I stand by my claim - warmist climate "scientists" are nothing of the sort. They are modern day astrologers and charlatans, and Lewandowsky, despite his lack of any climate credentials, is one of their acolytes.
In the same vein, imagine if you had a genetic test that could determine if someone was predisposed to violence, aggressive behavior, and criminal activity. Put this scenario in front of libtards, and they'll be the first to jump on the band wagon to abort any fetus that showed this genetic marker.
Oh, fun fact, the marker exists and we call it the "Y" chromosome.
I'll take it a step further - *everyone* should be required to know how to safely use and operate a firearm. It should be as compulsory as learning math and english.
Guns are useful, and guns are dangerous, and if you want guns to be used safely and properly, you need education, even for those people who are afraid of them and never want to touch them again after their training.
The gun is the great equalizer. It turns a 90 pound woman with poor upper body strength into someone who can compete with a 250 pound linebacker.
Heck, I'll bet if you had spent the last 10 years training and arming every last afghan girl above the age of 10, and created an all woman army, we'd have ended the "friendly fire" incidents *and* put a dent in islamic misogyny.
Slashdot Mirror
You didn't read the cite? The one where it showed that the 97% claimed consensus came from a survey that sent out 10,000+ surveys, got 3000+ responses, and then discarded all but around 77 to claim that 75 people represented "97%"?
Seriously, give it a read - it's a silly trope that warmists have been using for ages, and for anyone who is actually *informed* as to how that 97% number was created can see that it was terribly manipulated.
Far from it - you're either willfully misunderstanding the null hypothesis of climate change, or conflating it with your secondary null hypothesis "we must accept all articles that get past peer review as truth" (as if simply getting an article peer reviewed or published makes it the null hypothesis...how cute!).
You're lying. Prove me wrong by quoting the falsifiable hypothesis you think "climate science" has provided.
You can have experts in anything. There are experts in astrology. But no expert who walks around with a non-falsifiable hypothesis can claim to be doing science.
Do you believe your trusted experts have a falsifiable hypothesis statement? Can you quote it?
You're precious. You've been shown up by someone you think is younger and less worldly than you :)
Tell you what, provide your CV and age, and we'll talk :)
As for voodoo, you know that 97% of voodoo experts believe in voodoo too, right? :)
I'm sorry, which quote are you talking about? It's not clear.
Oh, you mean that part where the whole "97% of climate scientists agree" trope, based on a cherrypicked selection of survey responses that totaled only 75 responses out of *thousands*?
Yeah, forget sample size, 75 people out of thousands is obviously 97% if you simply discard enough data :)
And exactly how do you prove a non-falsifiable hypothesis wrong? :)
That's like asking you to win a game of "heads I win, tails you lose" :)
If you want to argue something scientific, you are required to have a falsifiable hypothesis statement. Our default starting point is that scientific papers that are peer reviewed do not necessarily contain falsifiable hypotheses.
You are more than welcome to falsify my hypothesis by quoting from any peer reviewed paper you wish :)
And how do you do that? A magic hat? A voice in your head? Really, simply claiming that your arguments from authority are justified by your own personal authority is just...well, sad.
The point of failure here is obvious - you have zero willingness to address the concept of falsifiability because it threatens your personal worldview. You have chosen to believe and trust in experts with credentials you find impressive, and when they are challenged you become defensive and emotional.
The fact of the matter is this - anyone who tells you that they have a theory that can't be proven wrong by any observations is feeding you a line of bull. Falsifiability is a *requirement* of the scientific method, period. All of your mouth frothing and cargo-cult science can't overcome that simple yet profound requirement.
In fact, my hypothesis (that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming has no falsifiable hypothesis), is a *perfect* example of science in action - it is indeed falsifiable. All you have to do is state, or quote a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, and my hypothesis is falsified.
The fact that after dozens of responses that you still can't find that quote, from any expert you choose to believe in, lends strength to my hypothesis, the same way trying really hard to find observations that falsify say, gravity, and not finding them, strengthens our confidence in the theory of gravity.
Your quoted text had no numbers in it. Or are you referring to something much earlier in the thread?
My point stands - falsifiability is the key factor that we can use to discern between science and pseudo-science.
It's telling that you don't even try to defend the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming models as falsifiable.
Sure they are. You're confused about the line of argument which refutes your beliefs, and I'm explaining it to you. Your claims of certainty (by proxy at that), are unfounded because you simply haven't started the scientific method with a falsifiable hypothesis statement. Demanding that I provide my own personal alternative falsifiable hypothesis statement is a red-herring - you're not in competition with me, you're in competition with the null hypothesis.
You're misstating my assertion. CO2 can be a greenhouse gas, and be related to the temperature of the planet, without human emissions playing any significant role. Are you stating that there is no possible scenario where human emissions can have a negligible effect?
I've made myself perfectly clear - GCM models which are supported by alarmists are non-falsifiable. More specifically, no observations of real world climate or CO2 would falsify their central conceit that is hard coded into them (i.e., that human CO2 emissions drive global average temperature).
As a case example of this kind of religious thinking, in 2008 the NOAA claimed that their models would fail at the 95% confidence level if a 15 year period of statistically insignificant warming was observed. We've had 16 years now. Now, do you accept that the central conceit is wrong, or do you hold onto the last 5%, or do you insist that some other ad hoc special pleading can be inserted to preserve your faith?
GISS simply changed their data and didn't version control it. Do you deny that GISS has adjusted their data, and failed to provide any sort of version control for their previous values? Please, point me in the direction of the GISS git if you've got a URL.
I asserted that NOAA claimed to have a falsifiable model, by specifying a falsification. Now that the falsification has been observed, instead of admitting the error of their central conceit, you remain faithful to the original model.
So, did you *really* consider the original model to be falsifiable? Or did you always have your ad hoc special pleading in your back pocket? :)
And exactly what is fallacious about insisting that the null hypothesis is that human CO2 emissions have no relationship (causal or otherwise) with global average temperature? Please, be specific.
Or if it's just CO2 levels period, what is fallacious about insisting that the null hypothesis is that there is no causal relationship between CO2 and global average temperature?
You keep thinking that you've made some point, but gloss over the details.
Eureka, you just may have gotten it! Before humanity, there were warming events. We cannot explain for all of these warming events what exactly was the forcing that caused them. But we know these were all natural (unless you want to bring ET or God into the picture). Of course nobo
You seem to believe the scientific method is simply done by a poll of credentialed experts. Just survey the people with degrees, or papers, or lab coats, and based on that poll, we have scientific fact.
But that isn't how science works - it's much more democratic than that. We start with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, and then *anyone*, no matter how lowly, who finds observations of falsification, can overturn the common wisdom.
Of course, without a falsifiable hypothesis, there can be no overturning dogma - it can survive *any* observation, and as Popper noted, this is a *weakness* not a *strength*.
At this point, it seems you've been reduced to frothing at the mouth, rather than trying to say, make an argument that falsifiability isn't required and explaining how you would show astrology is a pseudo-science. After all, 99% of credentialed astrologists believe that astrology is real, and that horoscopes are useful tools, and that their models are useful, and that astrology is in fact, scientific.
If you can't see that arguments based on authority are essentially religious arguments, then you have chosen not to grow up at all.
The august authorities of the scientific world once believed that non-whites were subhuman - they had all of the qualifications you could imagine, and the "science was settled", and the consensus was clear. But they were wrong. Terribly wrong.
Your worshipped authorities who believe in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (unnamed as they are), have no necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, and are preaching a religion, not practicing science.
Oh, I didn't even see the precious references to "97% of climatologists" survey!
Quick guess - how many climatologists was that, *actually* surveyed?
Less than 100? Less than 1000? Less than 10,000?
Oh, and for bonus points, how many responses to the survey were thrown away?
Less than 100? Less than 1000? Less than 10,000?
The argument from the authority of the "97%" falls apart when you actually look at the *real* data:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/
You see, it doesn't take artificial credentials to show that someone isn't using the scientific method - all one has to do is point out their lack of a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, and it is shown.
Demanding some sort of bestowed qualification is simply a religious proxy of authority.
Now, you may not quite understand that you're practicing a religion, but seriously - go look for the falsifiable hypothesis statement of the mentors you trust. Perhaps right now you simply assume that it is there, and feel put upon to produce it, but I assure you, it simply does not exist, and you can look for that yourself.
Of course, on the other hand, perhaps you don't believe that something needs to be falsifiable in order to be scientific, and that science can be done simply by trusting our betters...
I'm not avoiding anything - if flight 93 had not fought off their hijackers, and they had managed to kill another couple of thousand, it would simply be worse off for box cutters, and we'd be able to claim they killed 6000 people.
Six adults fought back to the death in Connecticut. If only one of them had a firearm available to fight back, they could have saved the lives of 20 children.
You want kindergarteners and teachers to just fight back with crayons and pencils when they're attacked?
Anything can be a weapon - even a box cutter. It is simply not credible to believe that you can prevent crazies from getting weapons even if you decide to outlaw a specific class of weapons.
Yes. Obviously declaring the school a "gun-free zone" only served to point out what a vulnerable target it was for the murderer.
It's a first line of defense, it's not perfect, but then again, that's why I support concealed carry. Yes, we might not always know ahead of time. My bet is that this particular psychopath just might have fit a profile where institutionalization was appropriate, but that's just one pass at the tree - the other pass is to allow adults to be safely armed to fight off nutbags like these.
If you were under attack at that school, hearing the shots over the intercom, and you knew that if you pulled your concealed carry weapon, and tried to make a difference, that you might hit a child by accident, would you still idly sit by and let 20 children be murdered? How about if it wasn't your gun, but the janitor's...would you rather that person take the risk of hitting a child by accident, or would you want him to sit idly by and let 20 children be murdered?
Yes, anytime you confront someone with a firearm, there's a risk. But you ask any of the families of the 20 children who got shot up by this maniac if they would've been willing to have their child be collateral damage if the other 19 children had been saved, and I doubt you'd have any would say no.
Bottom line is this - guns can be used safely, carried responsibly, and can prevent tragedy. We cannot stop criminals from having weapons, no matter how draconian you'd like to make our society, and taking away firearms from law abiding citizens is a pointless gesture.
So again, the argument from authority :) You didn't even bother to ask for any sort of falsifiable hypothesis, cherry picked the authorities you'd believe, and blithely assert that magically, they are able to assert knowledge without any sort of falsifiability.
Yup, that sounds pretty religious to me :)
Of course they have - they change all the time. Do you honestly think cloud cover and albedo has been constant throughout human history?
You haven't shown me one yet :)
Again, show me the *one* model that you believe represents your central conceit, which if in error regarding any predictions, will falsify your central conceit. Or do you once again insist that your central conceit is beyond reproach and falsifiability?
You mistake my assertion - I'm asserting that without a falsifiable hypothesis statement, *everyone* is ignorant of the matter. You seem to believe that you can simply get away with picking and choosing particular labcoat wearing "scientists" as expert authorities, and trust them without asking them for the most basic of scientific requirements - falsifiability.
You see, we're ignorant, and I know it. You still have faith, however :)
You seem to have the SS liturgy down quite well :) Look, SS simply waves their hands and say, "oh, it's okay that CO2 lagged before, now it's leading and things have changed, so don't mind us" :)
Really, that all you have? My God is bigger than yours? :)
Wow, and somehow you took that statement of mine to mean that I predicted climate change? Neither the word "climate" or "change" is in that cite :)
Don't know much about feedback loops, do you? :) Look, you assert CO2 has a positive feedback effect - yet CO2 hasn't driven climate, but has instead lagged it...doesn't that make it obvious to you that any positive feedback effect CO2 has is overwhelmed by other natural variation?
CO2 does not decide to behave differently when humans emit it, versus emissions from other natural sources. Any positive feedback effect it has is *obviously* insignificant when we can look back and see that it *lagged* temperature.
No, he simply changed the data after it was collected so that it would match his apocalyptic rantings :)
Are you seriously trying to defend his post-hoc manipulation of the data to create warming trends where they didn't exist before? Really? Is that how you do science?
You misunderstand what I'm speaking about - I'm speaking about the scientific method, which I have pro
You completely misunderstand. Gravity has a falsifiable hypothesis. There are observations which would contradict the hypothesis of gravity as a weak force with a specific magnitude that varies with distance. There isn't any tweakable model with hard coded variables when it comes to gravity - there is a specific relationship that is asserted between mass, distance and force, and there are specific observations that would disprove it. It just so happens that despite hundreds of years of trying, nobody has found those falsifications, so we're relatively assured we've got it right.
The religion of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, on the other hand, simply takes a look at all observations and insists that they are "consistent with" their hypothesis. It's like putting forth a law of gravity that would accept 9.8m/s^2 as the gravitational force of the earth, as well as 8.8m/s^2, and 15m/s^2, or any other observed value.
You really have no idea how important falsifiability is, do you? You look at gravity, see something mysterious, and just assume that the mysterious catastrophic anthropogenic global warming thing is the same...fascinating.
Sure I do. Concealed carry for school office staff, with sufficient regulation and training to avoid any accidents, compulsory firearms safety training starting in kindergarten, and the ability for a mother to commit her son to an institution when she realizes he's off his nut.
Yes, it was. Of course, the *key* ingredient was people committed enough to mass violence to pull it off, but if you're going to blame the tools used by murderers, then the point stands.
That's a fact. The murderer was unable to get a legal weapon, so he *stole* the guns, murdered his mother, and illegally took the guns to a gun free zone (certainly something that gave him confidence that he wouldn't be stopped before his rampage was over). Laws didn't stop this maniac from doing what he did, but laws did prevent any of the staff at the school from having any legal chance at self defense.
Guns are dangerous, they're not toys, and people need to know how to properly handle them because avoidable accidents do happen. But psychopathic murderers who aren't institutionalized when they should be can't simply be avoided - they're the thing you should be trying to regulate, not the tools they happen to use.
The goalposts haven't moved, you just didn't understand where they were in the first place. Before you reach the goal of using the scientific method, and being scientific, you start off with the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement. Yes, it isn't the easiest goal, but it's the requirement for science.
All of your hand waving and emotional contempt aside, the cold hard truth is this - you trust in people who don't deserve it, because they're not doing science, they're preaching a religion. You may not believe this to be true, but that doesn't stop it from being so. Not a single warmist on the planet has put forth a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, period.
Please, prove me wrong, and quote one :)
A fascinating interpretation of the conversation. Perhaps you didn't understand my critique of your "obvious one proven for a century"? Let me try and be clear:
1) The relationship between the SOI (derived from surface air pressure differences between Tahiti and Darwin), and the actual SO is a useful model for deciding when the SO is happening when you can't observe it directly. It does not have any predictive power as to the timing of the SO, it simply asserts a correlation.
2) The relationship between global average CO2 (derived from measurements on Mauna Loa, or ice core records), and the global average temperature observed may indeed have a relationship between each other. However, it does not have any predictive power as to the timing of any given global average temperature, it simply asserts a correlation.
So, while indeed one may be interested in what phase the SO is in by measuring the SOI, and that may be useful, you simply cannot say the same about the warmist models of CO2, if for no other reason that global average temperature has no useful function - it gives you no information about climactic patters (unlike the SO).
I understand it, I just find it amusing since he's a fraud :) He started with his conclusion (those darn skeptics are just conspiracy theorists in disguise), and then manipulated his data until he finally tried, with a straight face, to assert that he had shown something that was unsupportable by the numbers. He's not only a bad scientist, he's a bad mathematician :)
But hey, if you want to keep believing that Lewandowsky was attacked by some vast right-wing conspiracy, feel free :)
Did you read the cites? The attack is against his words directly. He *literally* lied about his findings, about his methodology, and even played a shell game with his own department substituting a different study than the one he first proposed. He set out to create false data to imply a correlation between skeptics and conspiracy theories, and even his false data didn't support his hypothesis. Now, he may be an asshat, and a generally annoying person on top of all of that, but it is a *fact* that he is a liar, and that his study was baseless fraud. McIntyre spells it all out, if you take the time to read it.
That's the thing about science - it doesn't require trust. By adhering to the scientific method, and starting with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, you can simply derive things for yourself.
Bottom line, warmists who do not provide a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement are not practicing science no matter what their credentials, and believers in these warmists who do not *ask* for a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement are outsourcing their own rational thinking to people who don't deserve such trust.
No, with a dull spoon. It'd hurt more.
So to be clear, you believe that something triggered anger in this murderer (much as his actions triggered anger in me), and his acting out on the impulses created by that anger is a logical consequence of believing evil should be punished in a violent and painful manner? Perhaps his only real flaw was misunderstanding that innocent 5 year olds and teaching staff aren't evil, and that once you grant that premise, then all of his actions are rational?
At a certain point, despite my avid atheism, I believe there is such a thing as evil. It's not a rational thought, it's a belief, and I accept that, even though I generally eschew religion. Now today we live in a society that has muted to a great degree the idea of punishing evil - part of this is based on the judeo-christian roots of redemption (yes, I know they also have roots of vengeance, but nobody says religions have to be consistent).
So can we eliminate bloodlust from our society? Can we abandon entirely the idea of punishing evil with violence and pain? Would such a move stop psychopathic murderers like the one in Connecticut?
I'd posit, no, no and no.
Guns throw lead from point A to point B. You can use this to hunt for food, eliminate pests, target shoot for fun, target shoot for competition, target shoot for entertainment, defend yourself, attack others - just as a box cutter separates material that is stuck together, which can be used to hunt for food, eliminate pests, separate material for fun, separate material for competition, separate material for entertainment, defend yourself, attack others. Certainly the box cutter may find more use in more places (separating material is a common task, whereas throwing lead isn't quite so much), but if simply having another use makes something acceptable for you, what about a gun with a boxcutter on the front?
But again, if you hate guns, you've got to not only control the distribution of manufactured weapons, but also the manufacture of them. With 3D printing technology, anyone can print their own sword or gun, or sharp stick. Shall we therefore regulate all possible paths to throwing lead?
But you can kill 3000 of them in the course of an hour with just a few of them.
"Zamudio was a CCW holder and had a weapon on his person, but arrived after the shooting had stopped and did not use the firearm to engage or threaten the gunman."
They didn't arrive until after the shooting stopped. If Zamudio had been there when it started, he might have been able to save at least one of the six victims, even if he couldn't have saved them all.
Thank you, that makes it more clear what you're talking about. Now, how you can go from the southern oscillation index (which, is a measurement of the strength of the Southern Oscillation, specifically computed from fluctuations in the surface air pressure difference between Tahiti and Darwin, Australia), to a *model*, much less a model comparable to modern GCMs - that's a stretch.
I mean, at the best, you can claim to have found a relationship (a model) between surface air pressure in two different locations, and large ocean oscillation - as indeed there might be between say, a doubling of CO2 and temperature. But the direction of causality matters.
If we change the surface air pressure in Darwin and Tahiti, can we change the Southern Oscillation? Of course not. But you take it for granted that it is CO2 that drives temperature rather than the other way around.
As for Stephen Lewandowsky, are you really going to cite him as a reference?
http://climateaudit.org/2012/09/18/lewandowskys-fake-correlation/
http://climateaudit.org/2012/09/20/conspiracy-theorist-lewandowsky-tries-to-manufacture-doubt/
http://climateaudit.org/2012/09/23/more-deception-in-the-lewandowsky-data/
Here's the FOI info that exposed Lewandowsky's fraud:
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/10/lewandowsky-foi-substantial-last-minute-changes-to-project-waved-through-by-uwa-ethics-committee/
Lewandowsky is a perfect example of a motivated reasoner, who is intelligent and educated, who forces observations to fit his preconceived hypothesis :)
I stand by my claim - warmist climate "scientists" are nothing of the sort. They are modern day astrologers and charlatans, and Lewandowsky, despite his lack of any climate credentials, is one of their acolytes.
In the same vein, imagine if you had a genetic test that could determine if someone was predisposed to violence, aggressive behavior, and criminal activity. Put this scenario in front of libtards, and they'll be the first to jump on the band wagon to abort any fetus that showed this genetic marker.
Oh, fun fact, the marker exists and we call it the "Y" chromosome.
I'll take it a step further - *everyone* should be required to know how to safely use and operate a firearm. It should be as compulsory as learning math and english.
Guns are useful, and guns are dangerous, and if you want guns to be used safely and properly, you need education, even for those people who are afraid of them and never want to touch them again after their training.
The gun is the great equalizer. It turns a 90 pound woman with poor upper body strength into someone who can compete with a 250 pound linebacker.
Heck, I'll bet if you had spent the last 10 years training and arming every last afghan girl above the age of 10, and created an all woman army, we'd have ended the "friendly fire" incidents *and* put a dent in islamic misogyny.
Oh, you mean like police officers shooting at a murderer in New York, and hitting nine civilians?
Yes, panic happens, but even if a civilian shooter had panicked, and shot a dozen kids while killing this fucking asshat, we'd be better off.
Yes, the "civilian saves the day" is a long shot, but it's better than no shot.