The first amendment is irrelevant in this case as it's the NBA's rules he violated. You can argue it violates free speech on broader grounds but that's not synonymous with the first amendment.
I agree that the punishment exceeds the crime, but I also think there wasn't a lot of choice. You can't have someone who holds and repeatedly espouses racist views own a basketball team comprising largely of black people. Before he said anything it could be kept under the rug, but now his view are public everyone knows he's racist and he continues to re-affirm the fact.
For as long as he owned an NBA team there would be a narrative of a racist white owner owning a team of black people. That would definitely hurt the NBA, they didn't have much choice but to force him out.
Rich people get a lot of privileges we don't get, particularly the rich people who own sports teams. The tradeoff is they sometimes need to be more careful about what they say. If he didn't want to be held to account for his racist beliefs he shouldn't have bought an NBA team.
The clue is at the end of the summary: "without additional expertise and the right type of ammunition, anyone attempting to fire one would probably maim or even kill themselves."
I.e. you've seen all those cool videos about printing 3D guns? Well here's what happens if you try to make one without really knowing what you're doing.
And the media shouldn't freak out because they're of no use to criminals. Any criminal with the expertise to make one of these would have a much easier time making a much more reliable and effective zip gun or buying a gun on the black market.
And, in the decades since England banned guns, violent crime has gotten much worse. Did banning guns lead to increased crime? Can't say because correlation does not prove causation. But definitely we can't say that banning guns made England less violent.
I was curious about this so checked out the homicide rates.
First hit was a pro-gun site with a really damning looking set of graphs. Knowing how easy it is to play with numbers I dug a little deeper.
This site looks a little more unbiased. Long story short the homicide rate had been increasing for decades, after guns were banned the rate continued to increase. Maybe the increase is slowing down but there's too much noise in the data.
simple, it became more valuable because more people wanted to take it from sterling. in their heads they are sticking it to him by taking his baby, if im him though id just be all like ok, i bought this for 12 million, and sold it for 2 billion.... wheres the punishment?
He's obscenely rich. You have money so you can buy toys, but now he has to sell one of his favourite toys and he can't buy another to replace it, that's punishment. Moreover he's just went from obscenely rich owner of an NBA franchise to obscenely rich person who was so repugnant he had his franchise taken away, that level of condemnation has to sting.
at least we in the tech industry can be thankful that the NBA & LA community will now have to put up with Ballmer's antics
what if it was the reverse?
successful athletes, coaches, and celebrities bought up startups with their big spending...
can you imagine a consortium of Oprah, Magic Johnson, and some Goldman/Sach's types buying facebook.com from Zuck & Co when it was still valued in the low millions before they got on their IPO track w/ Theil?
It probably wouldn't work.
Owning a sports franchise is basically a vanity project. Hire a GM to handle the drafts, trades, and contracts, other folks to handle the marketing, then you basically get to be a super fan who has a legit stake in the team. You don't need to evaluate whether your basketball team should open up a hockey team as well, or if you should only start four players to save on costs. You don't even really need to make money because you're a fan and doing it for fun.
Owning a company is something else entirely, mergers, product lines, etc. You can buy stock and own some in a non-decision making capacity, but to have any input you need a lot more business skills than you would for a franchise.
One has to wonder if Donald Sterling would have received this much money for his team without a scandal? It appears to me that he greatly profited from the scandal.
Without the scandal it wouldn't have been sold until after his death.
Almost certainly the scandal would have depressed the price if it changed it at all, I don't see how it made the Clippers more valuable. The longer Sterling held onto the Clippers the more they became associated with racism and the more the brand was damaged. Sterling had to sell quick and that meant the pool of potential buyers were whomever could scrape the cash on short notice. I don't expect it made a big dent in the final price but it probably depressed it a bit.
Just to drive my point home: in this article titled 'Shrinking Waves May Save Antarctic Sea Ice' we get
" You may like to read: Scientists Warn of Rising Oceans As Antarctic Ice Melts "
what is it?! How many fingers am I supposed to be seeing here??
Both.
This article is talking about the increased sea ice extent. Basically the amount of the ocean that's covered ice. It affects the albedo a bit, but mostly it's an interesting mystery because you'd expect it to shrink in a warmer climate.
The other article is talking about the decreasing ice volume. The thickness of multiyear ice on both land and sea is shrinking. This is expected given the warming climate, it's also worrying because it causes sea levels to rise.
I believe that the human brain is well within the scope of what we can understand and eventually replicate. It is not necessarily complex, it's just that it is a black box with the same building blocks repeated 100 billion times.
Take for example the following rather simple function: y = x^3 / exp(x) If all you had was the output graph, and you weren't a crack at maths, then you may find it very hard to replicate the same behavior. That does not mean that your IQ is too low to understand.
That's like saying you understand the Linux kernel if you can understand a simple math equation.
Our brains are more than a random assortment of neurons. Even if you assume it's fully explained by the neuron connections and firing properties it's a ridiculously complex organ.
>Is machine sentience not only possible, but inevitable? Of course not.
The only thing that would stop it is the fall of civilization. There's no reason to believe that only machines made of meat can think. You didn't think your thoughts were based on fairy-dust, did you?
So you're claiming the only two possible paths for humanity are either the fall of civilization, or inventing everything that it is possible to invent. At some point society will achieve steady state, knowledge will be so extensive that the greatest minds minds will be busy understanding the achievements of previous eras. What if we haven't reached the singularity at this point?
Can you teach a dog relativity? If not, then you accept that some species simply do not have the intellectual capacity to understand some concepts. The fact that we are the smartest species on the planet does not exempt us from that rule. I have no doubt it is possible to create an artificial consciousness, but I don't know the obstacles to this goal. Maybe it would require a species with an average IQ of 300 instead of 100, and even with genetic engineering we could only reach 220. In that case the singularity won't come.
Is there a scenario in which the unlicensed will be required to operate the vehicle themselves?
If yes, the unlicensed can't drive.
If no, they can.
For a partially autonomous car requiring occasional driving an unlicensed user obviously can't use it.
For a fully autonomous car there should never be a necessity to drive since an autopilot failure will require a graceful break down mode regardless. Even if there's a manual drive mode an unlicensed user won't be allowed to use it and the car will essentially be broken down on the road.
The only time it comes up is with a partially autonomous car requiring occasional non-driving guidance. Then it's simply a question of whether you design an alternate certification process for the unlicensed and it really depends on the degree of user interaction required.
I don't agree. Star Trek The Motion Picture largely worked, and I've come to appreciate it far more over the years. In fact, the the ST:TOS films did a pretty damned good job all in all of moving the franchise from the 1960s TV series into the film world, and set the stage for the franchise's later successes. The key to TOS, television series and films, was that the characters were so sufficiently defined that you could literally hang any damned story you wanted on them and make it work.
Doing the sequel later doesn't mean you can't have a great film, it just means you don't really have a special advantage.
Now the Star Trek films did have one special advantage most distant sequels don't have in that they already had a main cast with a lot of chemistry. And the new Star Wars will have that to a degree though they might lose it if they add new main characters.
And you know what, that's okay! But I would've expected *someone* to have been this motivated already. Given the billions of dollars of research done in climate science, you would've thought *someone* would've done it already if it was possible.
My bet here is that two things happened:
1) latecomers just assumed it was there;
2) the early proponents were more politically motivated, and glossed over the politically inconvenient fact that their hypothesis wasn't falsifiable.
When the IPCC says there's a 95-100% chance that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming between 1951-2010 isn't that a falsifiable hypothesis?
1. A drop in global temperatures for some period of time to the level of 50 years ago or longer, without a clear cause
We've already seen that in the ice core record. Certainly nobody claims they have any sort of climate model that accurately hind casts ice ages.
I don't think that counts for events where we don't have sufficient data.
4. The discovery that climate forcings in the past were much larger, or temperature changes much smaller, than science thinks
Argument from ignorance. Just because we can't enumerate all natural causes of climate change doesn't mean that we must find them to disprove the pet theory that human CO2 emissions overwhelm all natural factors.
That sounds a lot like the god of the gaps, we can't account for every minor natural forcing so we can't make conclusions about the major forcings.
5. Warming of the stratosphere
No reason this cannot happen naturally.
6. Major errors in equipment in satellites, measuring outgoing long wave radiation
Again, no reason why measured outgoing long wave radiation cannot be a natural phenomenon.
7. Evidence of a substantial fall of relative humidity with rising temperature
Same as #5 and 6, but more importantly, this is one of the grand failures of GCMs that assume a feedback effect from CO2 to water vapor. The predicted humidity increases haven't happened.
And every observation with evolution is consistent with ID. AGW is the only good theory that explains all those observations.
They've certainly hit some *necessary* components (like the spectral constants of CO2), but they cannot reverse the burden of proof and insist we must enumerate all other climate influences before giving up on the central conceit that CO2 from humans drives climate.
They're not reversing the burden of proof. They're saying here's a theory backed by a ton of observations and has imperfectly predicted warming for decades. And no one has been able to offer an alternate theory for what's happening.
No, I'm happy to have a multiple line hypothesis. Heck, take a few paragraphs if you need to. Pages even! But the hypothesis shall be falsifiable, contain specific observations that would falsify the hypothesis, and a logical argument that the *lack* of those observations can only lead us to conclude the hypothesis is true.
Yeah, I'm not that motivated.
It's absolutely testable - finding an anachronistic fossil in the precambrian, such as that of a modern rabbit, would falsify it.
You seem to think that "test" means "lab experiment" - they really aren't the same thing. You can test a hypothesis by making a falsifiable prediction, and looking for observations that match - astrophysics is filled with stuff like that, since obviously we can't just setup experiments of solar systems and galaxies.
But you need the falsifiable prediction. No fair going, "if I see more droughts here, or if I see more floods here, AGW is right!" or "if Cancers are sometimes honest, but other times dishonest, astrology is right!"
The thing that bugs me about that formula isn't so much that there's a formula, but that it's the only formula.
I can't remember the number of times I've watched a film knowing exactly how a scene was going to go because I've seen the formula played out so many times. It's almost a bit of a death spiral at this point because the prominence of the formula. If the story misses or screws up a beat the audience notices and starts questioning why. If you're trying to be self-aware that's fine, hell Joss Whedon's specialty is visibly screwing with conventions, but if you don't want people thinking about the story structure you're kinda screwed. If follow the structure people start counting off the beats, but it's worse if you change it because people get confused waiting for the missing beats and miss the story.
The problem would go away if they just added one or two different formulas, you'd still have an outline for a well told story but the outline itself wouldn't be so visible to the audience.
If you make a sequel within a few years of the original film you're essentially making another version of the same film. The actors are roughly the same ages and playing the same characters, the action and direction style are similar. You have a pile of things that worked great and all you have to do is tweak the formula.
Such was the case with the original trilogy. The first film was great, the next two were variations on the first film so they were great as well.
But if you make the sequel decades later the characters are different, the action and direction are now outdated in the current era, all you have is the mythology which gets people in the door but doesn't tell you how to make a film.
Thus the average decades late sequel ends up being as good as the average new movie, it sucks. You hear about most movies for a year or two and then forget them. The only difference with the sequels to the big franchise is they stick around so you keep remembering how not amazing they were.
The second trilogy died with the first film. They came up with a crappy film and were stuck re-shooting that for the next two prequels.
There's no secret for making Episode VII great. Even with the same actors the characters will have to have grown and they need a new feel. Hopefully Star Trek has shown Abrahms what not to do and he'll find something good. But make no mistake, this is essentially a new SF action/adventure movie. It might be great and it might suck just like any other movie.
That's part of it, but not all of it - if CO2 levels are actually moderated by ocean temperatures, rather than the other way around say, then it's also back to the drawing board. And there are certainly others - you've got to add much more:)
Congrats, you've demonstrated that climate is complex, which means you can't really give a one or two line hypothesis, which according to you means climate science doesn't exist.
Let's be precise on what we mean by "evolution" - we're really talking about natural selection moving from simplicity to complexity and other adaptations. Evolution is not the precise claim of a chain of steps from prokaryotes to humans, or any other arbitrary life form, but a specification of how such chains can happen.
So your definition of evolution seems to be moving further from a testable hypothesis.
I'm certain you're not suggesting that in order to make AGW falsifiable you have to have a falsifiable hypothesis for every moment of weather in all history:)
No, just like a surprising adaption showing up in some beetle, or a version of eyes popping up earlier than we'd expect in the fossil record, doesn't mean evolution isn't science.
Not that I agree with everything this guy says, but here's an interesting recent article on hard and soft sciences that touches on this: http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
Climate science is a hard science, it's just that the important questions also happen to be very hard.
The question we're discussing is whether they're right on one of the biggest questions, is AGW happening and is it significant.
Btw, here's another necessary and mostly sufficient falsifiable hypothesis. The majority of the warming in the past 100 years can be attributed to human CO2 emissions.
It's like saying, "it's impossible for science to determine whether watching G.I. joe as a child will make someone more likely to murder" - theoretically, with a robust enough measuring network, and enough understanding about they myriad factors that makes someone a murderer, you could tease apart these inputs. We know that, in general, violence on TV correlates with murderous behavior, but separating that from other causal factors is surely beyond any practical scientific measure.
So should we ban violence on TV, and censor the airwaves everywhere, just in case?:)
There's no scientific consensus about the effects of violence on TV.
Well, let's follow his argument - once upon a time scientists thought humans were causing global cooling. They were wrong. Today, some scientists believe we are causing global warming. They're still wrong, but certainly not as wrong as the scientists who claimed an ice age was upon us. Some day in the future, scientists will isolate other factors that cause climate change, and in some way they'll be wrong too, but certainly not as wrong as those who claimed that our activity would create an ice age, or that our activity would create a runaway greenhouse.
Now here's a challenge to you - by what measure would you decide that someone was wrong on their central conceit, so that you could compare wrongness by some metric?
Almost no one believe in global cooling, certainly nothing close to the scientific consensus. To add it to the narrative is simply dishonest.
However, even if it had been the consensus for a short period that still works with Asimov's essay. They thought CO2 plus could cover plus a bunch of other anthropogenic factors would affect the planet making it cooler, they were wrong. They improved this to get a basic picture of global warming, they were still wrong. They improved to get a much more complex picture of global warming, they are still wrong, but much closer to the truth. That's how science works.
As for someone being centrally wrong I judge the people and evidence involved. The climate scientists don't strike me as the people to be and spectacularly wrong as you suggest.
Evolution is falsifiable. Find a modern rabbit in the precambrian, and it's back to the drawing board. At that point, you either need to assert time travel exists, or that the rabbit fossil was placed there by aliens, or some other equivalent to god.
Show that CO2 doesn't trap heat in the atmosphere, and it's back to the drawing board. But how do you prove evolution over millions of years? Look at fossils? What about all the gaps? Modern experiments? Well that's just micro-evolution but it doesn't scale up.
Not at all. In fact "it happens" (in terms of the globe warming over any given period of time), could very well be 100% natural, so the trick with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis is that you need to *exclude* the natural explanation (not simply wish it away).
So you're basically stating it's impossible for science to determine whether pumping CO2 into the atmosphere will make the earth warmer.
Sadly, though Asimov was a great writer, he wasn't much of a scientist:) Arguably, he was a luddite, but I still love his prose.
Funny how instead of addressing the argument you use an ad hominem against Issac Asimov.
And the first step of science, its very cornerstone, that which it cannot do without, is falsifiability.
Without falsifiability, no amount of critical reasoning can work - the lack of falsifiability *precludes* the discovery of truth, because observations have no meaning - when *any* observation can be "explained" by a hypothesis, it ceases to be science.
Any natural warming would also predict the ice caps would melt.
Your theory requires more than just refinement, it requires a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis:)
Which brings us back to the fact the only hypothesis you'd accept is impossible to falsify until it happens.
Someone should have my physics 114 prof that Newtonian physics was thrown away because he spent a lot of the course teaching us Newtonian physics.
Certainly not at relativistic speeds, right?:)
Did you miss the point of the Asimov essay? I'd seriously suggest you read it, he's a hell of a writer and it would clear up some misconceptions you're repeating.
Both are certainly true - pal review lets specious papers into the published record, keeps out contradictory ones, and whenever a pal reviewed paper is debunked, it's simply derided as "inconsequential" to the larger hypothesis.
My argument, which you've conceded to, is that there is no necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW. Once you've admitted that, how can you insist that AGW is scientific, without opening up the way for accepting astrology and other cargo cult science?
I can insist AGW is scientific because a single "necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW" is not feasible.
You ever wonder why you don't really see a simple, precise, all-encompassing definition of the scientific method? Because there is none. The scientific method is basically a system of critical evidence based reasoning. The specific methods depends on the problem at hand. Sometimes its a double-blind experiment, sometimes a mathematical proof, sometimes an observational study, it depends what you're trying to do.
The basic concept of AGW is simple, more CO2 in the atmosphere means more trapped heat, at a certain point this causes secondary factors to kick in and trap even more heat, this will make the climate as a whole warmer. I think this actually fits the definition of a "necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW". The problem is that you can't falsify it unless you wait 50 years, at which point we're experiencing the bad thing we would have like to avoid.
Instead we test it using secondary means. Does CO2 do what we'd expect? Yes. Does the atmosphere emit radiation the way we'd expect? Yes. Is the atmosphere warming as we expect? Yes. Is it warming at the precise rate we expect? Not quite. Is the ice melting as we expect? Mostly. etc
Instead your line of reasoning seems to be. We can't easily test it, therefore all the science is junk, therefore it isn't happening!
Yes, an astrologist making the claim that Cancers get along with Leos may have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for their research, but of course, even if they're proven wrong, that doesn't prove astrology wrong, correct?:)
Correct, that does not prove astrology wrong.
Astrology isn't a single hypothesis but a general model for human interaction. It's a poor model as virtually every astrology related hypothesis is shown to be wrong. Then again your month of birth has a definite and quantifiable influence on your chances of making the NHL. It's the totality of evidence that shows that the model is wrong.
This is *exactly* not science. Asserting that AGW is supported by all these lesser hypotheses, and that it survives no matter how many of these lesser hypotheses are disproven, is the textbook definition of unfalsifiable:)
The lesser hypothesis aren't disproven, they're refined. AGW related theories predicted the ice caps would melt, they are. The ice extent increased which requires refinement, but to say the hypothesis was disproven is imprecise.
And just what part of that required that physicists maintain a consistent message?:)
So do you see biologists trying to create a consistent message as evidence that evolution is faulty science?
No, I'm saying newtonian physics got proposed, was generally accepted, and then decades later everyone threw it away and accepted relativity:)
But surely you're not asserting that climate science is anywhere near as useful, reliable, or scientific as relativity, are you?:)
Someone should have my physics 114 prof that Newtonian physics was thrown away because he spent a lot of the course teaching us Newtonian physics.
Very good point. Seems impossible to rule out natural climate change, doesn't it, given those uncertainties:)
Natural climate change is certainly quite possible. That's why the IPCC estimates its probability.
That's cargo cult science:) Thousands of papers. All of them "consistent with". None of them "consequential" if they're disproven.
Take the ten million people who read their astrological chart today. Take the fundamental complexity of people. Say even a small fraction, just several thousand, had astrological charts that matched *perfectly* with reality.
Is this science?:)
That's what you are but what am I?
That's the essence of your argument. A handful of bloggers and scientists are doing real science while a major scientific field has gone cargo-cult.
But you don't even have a consistent model of what you're complaining about. In one instance its cargo cult because they won't allow any contrary information to be published, in the next instance its cargo cult because they're constantly disproving all their theories.
Now that's an ingenious defense of a failure to produce evidence:) "Oh, your honor, we don't have the murder weapon, but it's obvious since there was a murder, there was a weapon, so let's just not comment on it!":)
I'm sure theists believe that God's existence is so obvious and innocuous that nobody should question it either:)
So I assume you were talking about a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for their research, not the entirety of AGW at once.
So no, no one has achieved your impossible standard.
Really? It seems more obvious that contrary revolutionary positions is what has driven science forward:) Germs? What germs? Evolution? What evolution? Relativity? What relativity?:)
How did relativity go?
Einstein proposed it, people looked it over, proposed alternatives, proposed experiments, and eventually all came around to agreeing.
Same with germs, evolution, gravity, etc.
What you're proposing is something quite different. You're saying relativity got proposed, generally accepted, and then decades later everyone threw it away and went back to square one.
That's a completely different scenario, it's possible, and happens to slight degrees in fields like nutrition and psychology, but what you're proposing with AGW is fairly unprecedented in science.
It's not an impossible standard - there must be a set of observations excluded by the hypothesis, and a logical argument why the lack of those observations must lead *only* to the conclusion of the hypothesis. AGW has neither.
Except climate isn't a simple enough process for a standard like that to be possible. There's feedbacks, oceans, clouds, multiple layers of atmosphere, ice, people doing unpredictable things to the whole system, etc. There's a fundamental complexity you can't ignore, that's why you need thousands of papers studying every detail and then things like the IPCC report to collect it into a whole.
AGW is filled with nothing but special pleadings. A theory with nothing but special pleadings isn't science, it's cargo-cult science
I know what cargo-cult science is, I've read denialist blogs:P
Your first cite shows someone changing their mind - it doesn't have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement:)
Heck, people convert to Christianity all the time, but that doesn't make Christianity science:)
He thought the science was of good quality. I'm not going to bother looking for a quote from an external scientist who says "I found a sufficient falsifiable hypothesis" anymore than I'd look for a quote from a philosopher who said "I found an atheist who wasn't a criminal". It's a fact so obvious and innocuous that no one bothers to comment on it.
The insulin hypothesis is backed up by observations - the fat-heart hypothesis is not. Taubes is just reporting the science, he's not making it.
The fact of the matter is that even if we are "correcting", it's taken us over 40 years - by that measure, we'll finally realize the error of AGW in about 20 more years:)
The problem is you take up the contrary revolutionary position on every scientific question, that's a very reliable method for being wrong.
That certainly may be *necessary* for AGW to be true, but it's clearly not *sufficient*. Heck, it doesn't even begin to touch on the origins of CO2, or the lack of any sort of relation between human CO2 emissions and measured CO2 levels (CO2 emissions vary widely both seasonally and yearly, but global CO2 levels have been monotonically increasing, as if governed by completely different drivers than simply human input).
So a general hypothesis that the earth will warm in several decades isn't valid because it's not falsifiable for several decades.
And any other hypothesis is insufficient because the only actual thing that will actually prove significant warming in several decades is waiting several decades for significant warming.
What's the point if you've created an impossible standard for a hypothesis or evidence?
But here's the real problem - your SS cite throws a bunch of stuff at the wall, but does not actually specify falsification observations. And if you're honest, you'll admit that when there *are* observations of falsifications, the AGW trope is protected by ad hoc special pleadings asserting that they aren't "consequential":) It's a very typical astrology trick:)
When an observation clashes with theory you go back and figure out why. Is the observation wrong? Is the theory wrong? Is it wrong in general or is there a special case responsible for this observation. That's not special pleading, that's science. With your model when astronomers found the planetary orbits didn't work out they would have thrown out gravity instead of positing Pluto.
Find me a single "external scientist" who investigated the literature, and found a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW. Just one.
This happened once before with another corrupt scientist - Ancel Keys. His notorious "7 countries study" asserted a link between dietary fat intake and heart disease. As it turned out, his results were only caused by deleting data to "hide the decline" as it were. His ruthless pursuit of power led him to positions at the heart of government that led eventually to our dietary advice for lower-fat, and higher carbohydrate intake. He demanded that we act because the "science suggested" that there was a link between heart disease and dietary fat intake. In fact, he was wrong, and sent our country on an over 40 year path of increasing obesity, diabetes, cancer, heart disease and other chronic diseases.
Are you the one of the Taubes followers? It seems that crackpot science follows the same rules as conspiracy theories. (yes, fat was probably overblown, but the science self-corrected)
*EXACTLY THIS*. We've proven there is no such thing as "scientific consensus" on AGW (nor is science driven by consensus). So *of course* we're going to indict them when they try to form a "consistent message" when the *FACTS* contradict that message!
So 97% of climate scientists agreeing isn't consensus, though just in case someone doesn't buy that you'll say science isn't driven by consensus, presumably because that would provide a falsifiable hypothesis you would fail.
Quote a *SINGLE* one. Find me a single AGW paper that says "if we observe this, that, or the other, AGW is false, and if we *fail* to observe this, that, or the other, we must logically conclude AGW is true".
Just for fun, you'll note that I made my hypotheses falsifiable - "there is no AGW paper with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW" is falsified by a *single* observation of an AGW paper with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW. Find just *one*, and I'll admit I'm wrong:) Of course, since this is a simple hypothesis, you can logically see how if you can't even find *one*, then it's very likely that my hypothesis is true - the logical case for AGW would of course have to be more complex in order to show that the lacking observations couldn't also happen with natural climate change.
Here's a bunch. In specific "Satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation". CO2 trapping more heat in the atmosphere means that there will be less radiation emitted from the atmosphere in the related wavelength. That's a falsifiable hypothesis and it's a hypothesis they tested by looking at the thermal radiation.
Most AGW proponents are doing shoddy science at best, failing to do even basic things like version control data. Some of the best work is done by skeptic scientists, like Curry, or Lindzen - and it makes sense since they need to be completely above board before getting through the gauntlet of "pal-review" that gives a pass to anyone who plays to the party line.
This is contradicted by almost every external scientist who starts to investigate the literature.
Remember, the political charge on this came *first*, with the insistence that "we must act" and that "it's worse than we thought" - the fact that their predictions have contradicted observations has only caused them to circle the wagons more fervently, and that *increase* in political style messaging, rather than some well deserved humility that would be the proper response, is only exacerbating the issue.
The insistence that we must act came because the science suggests we might act. What would you prefer, "our study shows that you're driving straight towards a brick wall, but we have no recommendation on whether you should stop or change direction"?
As for the politicization of the message to the public this is justified by the eagerness with which you yourself jump on the different proposed mechanisms for the increasing ice extent. You insist on any sign of inconsistency as proof there's no scientific consensus, then when they try to form a consistent message you indict them for that as well.
If you want to show me someone doing good science here, find me *any* necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW from *any* paper at *any* time in history. Just one.
AGW represents science being subservient to politics, and the problem with politics is that you can never admit error (we've got a similar problem with fat and carbohydrates and the past 40 years of 'low-fat' advice from the government).
Look at the Republican party and tell me the opposition is more politically motivated than the scientists.
As for your 'falsifiable hypothesis' nonsense, almost *every* AGW paper is going to be making falsifiable hypothesis, what the hell do you think they're publishing if they don't have a hypothesis? Hell, that's one of the reasons why Bengtsson got rejected, because he had no hypothesis and was just pointing at numbers.
You're not asking for a falsifiable hypothesis, you're asking them to predict the unpredictable, to give a precise multiyear forecast of a complex system.
Slashdot Mirror
The first amendment is irrelevant in this case as it's the NBA's rules he violated. You can argue it violates free speech on broader grounds but that's not synonymous with the first amendment.
I agree that the punishment exceeds the crime, but I also think there wasn't a lot of choice. You can't have someone who holds and repeatedly espouses racist views own a basketball team comprising largely of black people. Before he said anything it could be kept under the rug, but now his view are public everyone knows he's racist and he continues to re-affirm the fact.
For as long as he owned an NBA team there would be a narrative of a racist white owner owning a team of black people. That would definitely hurt the NBA, they didn't have much choice but to force him out.
Rich people get a lot of privileges we don't get, particularly the rich people who own sports teams. The tradeoff is they sometimes need to be more careful about what they say. If he didn't want to be held to account for his racist beliefs he shouldn't have bought an NBA team.
More to the point he's 80 (and possibly suffering from dementia).
It's not like he can take the $2 billion and buy another team with it, the money might not mean anything to him at this point.
It's not disinformation it's a PSA.
The clue is at the end of the summary:
"without additional expertise and the right type of ammunition, anyone attempting to fire one would probably maim or even kill themselves."
I.e. you've seen all those cool videos about printing 3D guns? Well here's what happens if you try to make one without really knowing what you're doing.
And the media shouldn't freak out because they're of no use to criminals. Any criminal with the expertise to make one of these would have a much easier time making a much more reliable and effective zip gun or buying a gun on the black market.
And, in the decades since England banned guns, violent crime has gotten much worse. Did banning guns lead to increased crime? Can't say because correlation does not prove causation. But definitely we can't say that banning guns made England less violent.
I was curious about this so checked out the homicide rates.
First hit was a pro-gun site with a really damning looking set of graphs. Knowing how easy it is to play with numbers I dug a little deeper.
This site looks a little more unbiased. Long story short the homicide rate had been increasing for decades, after guns were banned the rate continued to increase. Maybe the increase is slowing down but there's too much noise in the data.
simple, it became more valuable because more people wanted to take it from sterling. in their heads they are sticking it to him by taking his baby, if im him though id just be all like ok, i bought this for 12 million, and sold it for 2 billion.... wheres the punishment?
He's obscenely rich. You have money so you can buy toys, but now he has to sell one of his favourite toys and he can't buy another to replace it, that's punishment. Moreover he's just went from obscenely rich owner of an NBA franchise to obscenely rich person who was so repugnant he had his franchise taken away, that level of condemnation has to sting.
at least we in the tech industry can be thankful that the NBA & LA community will now have to put up with Ballmer's antics
what if it was the reverse?
successful athletes, coaches, and celebrities bought up startups with their big spending...
can you imagine a consortium of Oprah, Magic Johnson, and some Goldman/Sach's types buying facebook.com from Zuck & Co when it was still valued in the low millions before they got on their IPO track w/ Theil?
It probably wouldn't work.
Owning a sports franchise is basically a vanity project. Hire a GM to handle the drafts, trades, and contracts, other folks to handle the marketing, then you basically get to be a super fan who has a legit stake in the team. You don't need to evaluate whether your basketball team should open up a hockey team as well, or if you should only start four players to save on costs. You don't even really need to make money because you're a fan and doing it for fun.
Owning a company is something else entirely, mergers, product lines, etc. You can buy stock and own some in a non-decision making capacity, but to have any input you need a lot more business skills than you would for a franchise.
One has to wonder if Donald Sterling would have received this much money for his team without a scandal? It appears to me that he greatly profited from the scandal.
Without the scandal it wouldn't have been sold until after his death.
Almost certainly the scandal would have depressed the price if it changed it at all, I don't see how it made the Clippers more valuable. The longer Sterling held onto the Clippers the more they became associated with racism and the more the brand was damaged. Sterling had to sell quick and that meant the pool of potential buyers were whomever could scrape the cash on short notice. I don't expect it made a big dent in the final price but it probably depressed it a bit.
Just to drive my point home:
in this article titled 'Shrinking Waves May Save Antarctic Sea Ice' we get
" You may like to read:
Scientists Warn of Rising Oceans As Antarctic Ice Melts "
what is it?! How many fingers am I supposed to be seeing here??
Both.
This article is talking about the increased sea ice extent. Basically the amount of the ocean that's covered ice. It affects the albedo a bit, but mostly it's an interesting mystery because you'd expect it to shrink in a warmer climate.
The other article is talking about the decreasing ice volume. The thickness of multiyear ice on both land and sea is shrinking. This is expected given the warming climate, it's also worrying because it causes sea levels to rise.
I believe that the human brain is well within the scope of what we can understand and eventually replicate.
It is not necessarily complex, it's just that it is a black box with the same building blocks repeated 100 billion times.
Take for example the following rather simple function:
y = x^3 / exp(x)
If all you had was the output graph, and you weren't a crack at maths, then you may find it very hard to replicate the same behavior. That does not mean that your IQ is too low to understand.
That's like saying you understand the Linux kernel if you can understand a simple math equation.
Our brains are more than a random assortment of neurons. Even if you assume it's fully explained by the neuron connections and firing properties it's a ridiculously complex organ.
>Is machine sentience not only possible, but inevitable? Of course not.
The only thing that would stop it is the fall of civilization. There's no reason to believe that only machines made of meat can think. You didn't think your thoughts were based on fairy-dust, did you?
So you're claiming the only two possible paths for humanity are either the fall of civilization, or inventing everything that it is possible to invent. At some point society will achieve steady state, knowledge will be so extensive that the greatest minds minds will be busy understanding the achievements of previous eras. What if we haven't reached the singularity at this point?
Can you teach a dog relativity? If not, then you accept that some species simply do not have the intellectual capacity to understand some concepts. The fact that we are the smartest species on the planet does not exempt us from that rule. I have no doubt it is possible to create an artificial consciousness, but I don't know the obstacles to this goal. Maybe it would require a species with an average IQ of 300 instead of 100, and even with genetic engineering we could only reach 220. In that case the singularity won't come.
Is there a scenario in which the unlicensed will be required to operate the vehicle themselves?
If yes, the unlicensed can't drive.
If no, they can.
For a partially autonomous car requiring occasional driving an unlicensed user obviously can't use it.
For a fully autonomous car there should never be a necessity to drive since an autopilot failure will require a graceful break down mode regardless. Even if there's a manual drive mode an unlicensed user won't be allowed to use it and the car will essentially be broken down on the road.
The only time it comes up is with a partially autonomous car requiring occasional non-driving guidance. Then it's simply a question of whether you design an alternate certification process for the unlicensed and it really depends on the degree of user interaction required.
I don't agree. Star Trek The Motion Picture largely worked, and I've come to appreciate it far more over the years. In fact, the the ST:TOS films did a pretty damned good job all in all of moving the franchise from the 1960s TV series into the film world, and set the stage for the franchise's later successes. The key to TOS, television series and films, was that the characters were so sufficiently defined that you could literally hang any damned story you wanted on them and make it work.
Doing the sequel later doesn't mean you can't have a great film, it just means you don't really have a special advantage.
Now the Star Trek films did have one special advantage most distant sequels don't have in that they already had a main cast with a lot of chemistry. And the new Star Wars will have that to a degree though they might lose it if they add new main characters.
And you know what, that's okay! But I would've expected *someone* to have been this motivated already. Given the billions of dollars of research done in climate science, you would've thought *someone* would've done it already if it was possible.
My bet here is that two things happened:
1) latecomers just assumed it was there;
2) the early proponents were more politically motivated, and glossed over the politically inconvenient fact that their hypothesis wasn't falsifiable.
When the IPCC says there's a 95-100% chance that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming between 1951-2010 isn't that a falsifiable hypothesis?
I don't think that counts for events where we don't have sufficient data.
That sounds a lot like the god of the gaps, we can't account for every minor natural forcing so we can't make conclusions about the major forcings.
And every observation with evolution is consistent with ID. AGW is the only good theory that explains all those observations.
They're not reversing the burden of proof. They're saying here's a theory backed by a ton of observations and has imperfectly predicted warming for decades. And no one has been able to offer an alternate theory for what's happening.
No, I'm happy to have a multiple line hypothesis. Heck, take a few paragraphs if you need to. Pages even! But the hypothesis shall be falsifiable, contain specific observations that would falsify the hypothesis, and a logical argument that the *lack* of those observations can only lead us to conclude the hypothesis is true.
Yeah, I'm not that motivated.
It's absolutely testable - finding an anachronistic fossil in the precambrian, such as that of a modern rabbit, would falsify it.
You seem to think that "test" means "lab experiment" - they really aren't the same thing. You can test a hypothesis by making a falsifiable prediction, and looking for observations that match - astrophysics is filled with stuff like that, since obviously we can't just setup experiments of solar systems and galaxies.
But you need the falsifiable prediction. No fair going, "if I see more droughts here, or if I see more floods here, AGW is right!" or "if Cancers are sometimes honest, but other times dishonest, astrology is right!"
How about a list of ten things that could prove AGW false?
The thing that bugs me about that formula isn't so much that there's a formula, but that it's the only formula.
I can't remember the number of times I've watched a film knowing exactly how a scene was going to go because I've seen the formula played out so many times. It's almost a bit of a death spiral at this point because the prominence of the formula. If the story misses or screws up a beat the audience notices and starts questioning why. If you're trying to be self-aware that's fine, hell Joss Whedon's specialty is visibly screwing with conventions, but if you don't want people thinking about the story structure you're kinda screwed. If follow the structure people start counting off the beats, but it's worse if you change it because people get confused waiting for the missing beats and miss the story.
The problem would go away if they just added one or two different formulas, you'd still have an outline for a well told story but the outline itself wouldn't be so visible to the audience.
If you make a sequel within a few years of the original film you're essentially making another version of the same film. The actors are roughly the same ages and playing the same characters, the action and direction style are similar. You have a pile of things that worked great and all you have to do is tweak the formula.
Such was the case with the original trilogy. The first film was great, the next two were variations on the first film so they were great as well.
But if you make the sequel decades later the characters are different, the action and direction are now outdated in the current era, all you have is the mythology which gets people in the door but doesn't tell you how to make a film.
Thus the average decades late sequel ends up being as good as the average new movie, it sucks. You hear about most movies for a year or two and then forget them. The only difference with the sequels to the big franchise is they stick around so you keep remembering how not amazing they were.
The second trilogy died with the first film. They came up with a crappy film and were stuck re-shooting that for the next two prequels.
There's no secret for making Episode VII great. Even with the same actors the characters will have to have grown and they need a new feel. Hopefully Star Trek has shown Abrahms what not to do and he'll find something good. But make no mistake, this is essentially a new SF action/adventure movie. It might be great and it might suck just like any other movie.
That's part of it, but not all of it - if CO2 levels are actually moderated by ocean temperatures, rather than the other way around say, then it's also back to the drawing board. And there are certainly others - you've got to add much more :)
Congrats, you've demonstrated that climate is complex, which means you can't really give a one or two line hypothesis, which according to you means climate science doesn't exist.
Let's be precise on what we mean by "evolution" - we're really talking about natural selection moving from simplicity to complexity and other adaptations. Evolution is not the precise claim of a chain of steps from prokaryotes to humans, or any other arbitrary life form, but a specification of how such chains can happen.
So your definition of evolution seems to be moving further from a testable hypothesis.
I'm certain you're not suggesting that in order to make AGW falsifiable you have to have a falsifiable hypothesis for every moment of weather in all history :)
No, just like a surprising adaption showing up in some beetle, or a version of eyes popping up earlier than we'd expect in the fossil record, doesn't mean evolution isn't science.
Not that I agree with everything this guy says, but here's an interesting recent article on hard and soft sciences that touches on this: http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
Climate science is a hard science, it's just that the important questions also happen to be very hard.
The question we're discussing is whether they're right on one of the biggest questions, is AGW happening and is it significant.
Btw, here's another necessary and mostly sufficient falsifiable hypothesis. The majority of the warming in the past 100 years can be attributed to human CO2 emissions.
It's like saying, "it's impossible for science to determine whether watching G.I. joe as a child will make someone more likely to murder" - theoretically, with a robust enough measuring network, and enough understanding about they myriad factors that makes someone a murderer, you could tease apart these inputs. We know that, in general, violence on TV correlates with murderous behavior, but separating that from other causal factors is surely beyond any practical scientific measure.
So should we ban violence on TV, and censor the airwaves everywhere, just in case? :)
There's no scientific consensus about the effects of violence on TV.
Well, let's follow his argument - once upon a time scientists thought humans were causing global cooling. They were wrong. Today, some scientists believe we are causing global warming. They're still wrong, but certainly not as wrong as the scientists who claimed an ice age was upon us. Some day in the future, scientists will isolate other factors that cause climate change, and in some way they'll be wrong too, but certainly not as wrong as those who claimed that our activity would create an ice age, or that our activity would create a runaway greenhouse.
Now here's a challenge to you - by what measure would you decide that someone was wrong on their central conceit, so that you could compare wrongness by some metric?
Almost no one believe in global cooling, certainly nothing close to the scientific consensus. To add it to the narrative is simply dishonest.
However, even if it had been the consensus for a short period that still works with Asimov's essay. They thought CO2 plus could cover plus a bunch of other anthropogenic factors would affect the planet making it cooler, they were wrong. They improved this to get a basic picture of global warming, they were still wrong. They improved to get a much more complex picture of global warming, they are still wrong, but much closer to the truth. That's how science works.
As for someone being centrally wrong I judge the people and evidence involved. The climate scientists don't strike me as the people to be and spectacularly wrong as you suggest.
Evolution is falsifiable. Find a modern rabbit in the precambrian, and it's back to the drawing board. At that point, you either need to assert time travel exists, or that the rabbit fossil was placed there by aliens, or some other equivalent to god.
Show that CO2 doesn't trap heat in the atmosphere, and it's back to the drawing board. But how do you prove evolution over millions of years? Look at fossils? What about all the gaps? Modern experiments? Well that's just micro-evolution but it doesn't scale up.
Not at all. In fact "it happens" (in terms of the globe warming over any given period of time), could very well be 100% natural, so the trick with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis is that you need to *exclude* the natural explanation (not simply wish it away).
So you're basically stating it's impossible for science to determine whether pumping CO2 into the atmosphere will make the earth warmer.
Sadly, though Asimov was a great writer, he wasn't much of a scientist :) Arguably, he was a luddite, but I still love his prose.
Funny how instead of addressing the argument you use an ad hominem against Issac Asimov.
And the first step of science, its very cornerstone, that which it cannot do without, is falsifiability.
Without falsifiability, no amount of critical reasoning can work - the lack of falsifiability *precludes* the discovery of truth, because observations have no meaning - when *any* observation can be "explained" by a hypothesis, it ceases to be science.
Popper, again for your reference: http://www.stephenjaygould.org...
Ok.
Explain to me why evolution is science and AGW isn't.
Any natural warming would also predict the ice caps would melt.
Your theory requires more than just refinement, it requires a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis :)
Which brings us back to the fact the only hypothesis you'd accept is impossible to falsify until it happens.
Someone should have my physics 114 prof that Newtonian physics was thrown away because he spent a lot of the course teaching us Newtonian physics.
Certainly not at relativistic speeds, right? :)
Did you miss the point of the Asimov essay? I'd seriously suggest you read it, he's a hell of a writer and it would clear up some misconceptions you're repeating.
Both are certainly true - pal review lets specious papers into the published record, keeps out contradictory ones, and whenever a pal reviewed paper is debunked, it's simply derided as "inconsequential" to the larger hypothesis.
My argument, which you've conceded to, is that there is no necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW. Once you've admitted that, how can you insist that AGW is scientific, without opening up the way for accepting astrology and other cargo cult science?
I can insist AGW is scientific because a single "necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW" is not feasible.
You ever wonder why you don't really see a simple, precise, all-encompassing definition of the scientific method? Because there is none. The scientific method is basically a system of critical evidence based reasoning. The specific methods depends on the problem at hand. Sometimes its a double-blind experiment, sometimes a mathematical proof, sometimes an observational study, it depends what you're trying to do.
The basic concept of AGW is simple, more CO2 in the atmosphere means more trapped heat, at a certain point this causes secondary factors to kick in and trap even more heat, this will make the climate as a whole warmer. I think this actually fits the definition of a "necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW". The problem is that you can't falsify it unless you wait 50 years, at which point we're experiencing the bad thing we would have like to avoid.
Instead we test it using secondary means. Does CO2 do what we'd expect? Yes. Does the atmosphere emit radiation the way we'd expect? Yes. Is the atmosphere warming as we expect? Yes. Is it warming at the precise rate we expect? Not quite. Is the ice melting as we expect? Mostly. etc
Instead your line of reasoning seems to be. We can't easily test it, therefore all the science is junk, therefore it isn't happening!
I'm sorry, that's a bad line of reasoning.
Aha! An admission at last!
Yes, an astrologist making the claim that Cancers get along with Leos may have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for their research, but of course, even if they're proven wrong, that doesn't prove astrology wrong, correct? :)
Correct, that does not prove astrology wrong.
Astrology isn't a single hypothesis but a general model for human interaction. It's a poor model as virtually every astrology related hypothesis is shown to be wrong. Then again your month of birth has a definite and quantifiable influence on your chances of making the NHL. It's the totality of evidence that shows that the model is wrong.
This is *exactly* not science. Asserting that AGW is supported by all these lesser hypotheses, and that it survives no matter how many of these lesser hypotheses are disproven, is the textbook definition of unfalsifiable :)
The lesser hypothesis aren't disproven, they're refined. AGW related theories predicted the ice caps would melt, they are. The ice extent increased which requires refinement, but to say the hypothesis was disproven is imprecise.
And just what part of that required that physicists maintain a consistent message? :)
So do you see biologists trying to create a consistent message as evidence that evolution is faulty science?
No, I'm saying newtonian physics got proposed, was generally accepted, and then decades later everyone threw it away and accepted relativity :)
But surely you're not asserting that climate science is anywhere near as useful, reliable, or scientific as relativity, are you? :)
Someone should have my physics 114 prof that Newtonian physics was thrown away because he spent a lot of the course teaching us Newtonian physics.
I suggest a little Asimov on the relativity of wrong.
Very good point. Seems impossible to rule out natural climate change, doesn't it, given those uncertainties :)
Natural climate change is certainly quite possible. That's why the IPCC estimates its probability.
That's cargo cult science :) Thousands of papers. All of them "consistent with". None of them "consequential" if they're disproven.
Take the ten million people who read their astrological chart today. Take the fundamental complexity of people. Say even a small fraction, just several thousand, had astrological charts that matched *perfectly* with reality.
Is this science? :)
That's what you are but what am I?
That's the essence of your argument. A handful of bloggers and scientists are doing real science while a major scientific field has gone cargo-cult.
But you don't even have a consistent model of what you're complaining about. In one instance its cargo cult because they won't allow any contrary information to be published, in the next instance its cargo cult because they're constantly disproving all their theories.
Now that's an ingenious defense of a failure to produce evidence :) "Oh, your honor, we don't have the murder weapon, but it's obvious since there was a murder, there was a weapon, so let's just not comment on it!" :)
I'm sure theists believe that God's existence is so obvious and innocuous that nobody should question it either :)
So I assume you were talking about a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for their research, not the entirety of AGW at once.
So no, no one has achieved your impossible standard.
Really? It seems more obvious that contrary revolutionary positions is what has driven science forward :) Germs? What germs? Evolution? What evolution? Relativity? What relativity? :)
How did relativity go?
Einstein proposed it, people looked it over, proposed alternatives, proposed experiments, and eventually all came around to agreeing.
Same with germs, evolution, gravity, etc.
What you're proposing is something quite different. You're saying relativity got proposed, generally accepted, and then decades later everyone threw it away and went back to square one.
That's a completely different scenario, it's possible, and happens to slight degrees in fields like nutrition and psychology, but what you're proposing with AGW is fairly unprecedented in science.
It's not an impossible standard - there must be a set of observations excluded by the hypothesis, and a logical argument why the lack of those observations must lead *only* to the conclusion of the hypothesis. AGW has neither.
Except climate isn't a simple enough process for a standard like that to be possible. There's feedbacks, oceans, clouds, multiple layers of atmosphere, ice, people doing unpredictable things to the whole system, etc. There's a fundamental complexity you can't ignore, that's why you need thousands of papers studying every detail and then things like the IPCC report to collect it into a whole.
AGW is filled with nothing but special pleadings. A theory with nothing but special pleadings isn't science, it's cargo-cult science
I know what cargo-cult science is, I've read denialist blogs :P
Your first cite shows someone changing their mind - it doesn't have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement :)
Heck, people convert to Christianity all the time, but that doesn't make Christianity science :)
He thought the science was of good quality. I'm not going to bother looking for a quote from an external scientist who says "I found a sufficient falsifiable hypothesis" anymore than I'd look for a quote from a philosopher who said "I found an atheist who wasn't a criminal". It's a fact so obvious and innocuous that no one bothers to comment on it.
The insulin hypothesis is backed up by observations - the fat-heart hypothesis is not. Taubes is just reporting the science, he's not making it.
The fact of the matter is that even if we are "correcting", it's taken us over 40 years - by that measure, we'll finally realize the error of AGW in about 20 more years :)
The problem is you take up the contrary revolutionary position on every scientific question, that's a very reliable method for being wrong.
That certainly may be *necessary* for AGW to be true, but it's clearly not *sufficient*. Heck, it doesn't even begin to touch on the origins of CO2, or the lack of any sort of relation between human CO2 emissions and measured CO2 levels (CO2 emissions vary widely both seasonally and yearly, but global CO2 levels have been monotonically increasing, as if governed by completely different drivers than simply human input).
So a general hypothesis that the earth will warm in several decades isn't valid because it's not falsifiable for several decades.
And any other hypothesis is insufficient because the only actual thing that will actually prove significant warming in several decades is waiting several decades for significant warming.
What's the point if you've created an impossible standard for a hypothesis or evidence?
But here's the real problem - your SS cite throws a bunch of stuff at the wall, but does not actually specify falsification observations. And if you're honest, you'll admit that when there *are* observations of falsifications, the AGW trope is protected by ad hoc special pleadings asserting that they aren't "consequential" :) It's a very typical astrology trick :)
When an observation clashes with theory you go back and figure out why. Is the observation wrong? Is the theory wrong? Is it wrong in general or is there a special case responsible for this observation. That's not special pleading, that's science. With your model when astronomers found the planetary orbits didn't work out they would have thrown out gravity instead of positing Pluto.
Find me a single "external scientist" who investigated the literature, and found a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW. Just one.
fine
This happened once before with another corrupt scientist - Ancel Keys. His notorious "7 countries study" asserted a link between dietary fat intake and heart disease. As it turned out, his results were only caused by deleting data to "hide the decline" as it were. His ruthless pursuit of power led him to positions at the heart of government that led eventually to our dietary advice for lower-fat, and higher carbohydrate intake. He demanded that we act because the "science suggested" that there was a link between heart disease and dietary fat intake. In fact, he was wrong, and sent our country on an over 40 year path of increasing obesity, diabetes, cancer, heart disease and other chronic diseases.
Are you the one of the Taubes followers? It seems that crackpot science follows the same rules as conspiracy theories. (yes, fat was probably overblown, but the science self-corrected)
*EXACTLY THIS*. We've proven there is no such thing as "scientific consensus" on AGW (nor is science driven by consensus). So *of course* we're going to indict them when they try to form a "consistent message" when the *FACTS* contradict that message!
So 97% of climate scientists agreeing isn't consensus, though just in case someone doesn't buy that you'll say science isn't driven by consensus, presumably because that would provide a falsifiable hypothesis you would fail.
Quote a *SINGLE* one. Find me a single AGW paper that says "if we observe this, that, or the other, AGW is false, and if we *fail* to observe this, that, or the other, we must logically conclude AGW is true".
Just for fun, you'll note that I made my hypotheses falsifiable - "there is no AGW paper with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW" is falsified by a *single* observation of an AGW paper with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW. Find just *one*, and I'll admit I'm wrong :) Of course, since this is a simple hypothesis, you can logically see how if you can't even find *one*, then it's very likely that my hypothesis is true - the logical case for AGW would of course have to be more complex in order to show that the lacking observations couldn't also happen with natural climate change.
Here's a bunch. In specific "Satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation". CO2 trapping more heat in the atmosphere means that there will be less radiation emitted from the atmosphere in the related wavelength. That's a falsifiable hypothesis and it's a hypothesis they tested by looking at the thermal radiation.
Most AGW proponents are doing shoddy science at best, failing to do even basic things like version control data. Some of the best work is done by skeptic scientists, like Curry, or Lindzen - and it makes sense since they need to be completely above board before getting through the gauntlet of "pal-review" that gives a pass to anyone who plays to the party line.
This is contradicted by almost every external scientist who starts to investigate the literature.
Remember, the political charge on this came *first*, with the insistence that "we must act" and that "it's worse than we thought" - the fact that their predictions have contradicted observations has only caused them to circle the wagons more fervently, and that *increase* in political style messaging, rather than some well deserved humility that would be the proper response, is only exacerbating the issue.
The insistence that we must act came because the science suggests we might act. What would you prefer, "our study shows that you're driving straight towards a brick wall, but we have no recommendation on whether you should stop or change direction"?
As for the politicization of the message to the public this is justified by the eagerness with which you yourself jump on the different proposed mechanisms for the increasing ice extent. You insist on any sign of inconsistency as proof there's no scientific consensus, then when they try to form a consistent message you indict them for that as well.
If you want to show me someone doing good science here, find me *any* necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW from *any* paper at *any* time in history. Just one.
AGW represents science being subservient to politics, and the problem with politics is that you can never admit error (we've got a similar problem with fat and carbohydrates and the past 40 years of 'low-fat' advice from the government).
Look at the Republican party and tell me the opposition is more politically motivated than the scientists.
As for your 'falsifiable hypothesis' nonsense, almost *every* AGW paper is going to be making falsifiable hypothesis, what the hell do you think they're publishing if they don't have a hypothesis? Hell, that's one of the reasons why Bengtsson got rejected, because he had no hypothesis and was just pointing at numbers.
You're not asking for a falsifiable hypothesis, you're asking them to predict the unpredictable, to give a precise multiyear forecast of a complex system.