One can also mourn the end of steam engine tech, which died for exactly the same reasons - something better, if less "romantic", took it's place. Some people love human space travel - or at least the concept of it, given it has never really happened - for exactly the reason your title alludes to. TV taught them to think of it as the future.
It isn't the future, of course, which is why this focus shift to what is theoretically achievable - Mars. Mars (and possibly Venus) really represent the limit of practical human travel + settlement from earth. Neither really represents an attractive proposition for long term settlement, except for those who are welded, ideologically, to the idea of human settlement. The idea that mysterious "tech" will make Mars interesting for people to live on, whilst the same "tech" magically does not apply to Earth, with all it's culture, natural beauty, diversity and frankly, convenience (survivable gravity, lack of killer radiation, breathable air) and thus life on Earth becomes suddenly boring - this is really a magical premise, like Irons Mans suit or Batman tech.
Meanwhile robots and probes plunge through the atmosphere of jupiter, land on Titan, and escape the solar system itself. They went to Mars already - 40 years ago.
No need to check that I applied this cursory check - which revealed immediately that the paper does not falsify any model let alone the imaginary model that you have been blindly salivating over, pavlov style, whenever someone rings a bell.
Sure it does. Search for "rule out".
Apparently you can't read. And I see that you aren't really committed to proving Watts' conjecture, which is a wise move on your part.
We've failed to witness any plausible rebuttal from you, so we'll move on.
Of course I knew that - having read several scientists who tore Watts+Pielke limb from limb, metaphorically speaking, for this elementary, childish mistake - a mistake they themselves have stepped away from and presumably thought no more of it - though pathetically, you failed to notice they had abandoned you.
Once again, I blame Watts for this debacle. He claimed that this paper falsifies the models, when it does not. But you yourself are also to blame.
Firstly, for misinterpreting this offhand reference by a known liar as something important.
Secondly, by mistaking the reference to a paper as a reference to a model.
Surely you understood the context to mean NOAA 2008 was referring to the model HADcm3.
That is obviously my point. Can't you read? I understood perfectly what was going on - I knew, in fact, since you first raised it in our last conversation.
You, in contrast, were completely taken in by that liar Watts.
Would you like me to go back over this conversation and draw out the times you made reference to the fairy tale model?
How many times has he (Watts) fooled you now?
Thirdly, by persisting with it, despite my telling you plainly -several times - that the "NOAA 2008 Model" was imaginary and despite my repeatedly warning you to not step over that cliff. It seems, ironically, you've come to depend on me to warn you when to not go down a particular path - that you need me to guide you into the right path and strengthen your argument for you. I'm a better friend than Watts or Pielke. But what will happen when you meet someone who is not as nice to you?
In that spirit then, you should take this debacle as something of an ominous forewarning, If Watts/Pielke led you astray by their flippancy, lack of professional journalism, and just plain deception - if they led you astray in this case what else have they told you that is also a lie?
As it happens I know what that is.
You're boring me now, so we'll bring this conversation to an end. I'll offer you a choice - you can retire hurt now, and I'll speak with you again. If you keep going, I'll kill your dog. Not wound it - stone dead, no resurrection.
I'm allergic, so I don't have a dog
I was, of course referring to you metaphorical dog, which is you central fallacious construct: there is no necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW - I called it a dog, rather than an construct or fallacy, because of your emotive attachment to it.
What of this necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW?
1. Popper doesn't demand that there be a "sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW" - for Popper and his adherents, that would be like saying that astronomy (which has no "sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement" , being composed of multiple hypotheses) is unscientific.
2. Your proof of your hypothesis: (there is no necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW ) fails the test set by Popper. Your proof - which put succintly, is "There is no falsifiable hypothesis because I have never seen one" is Inductivist and therefore fallacious in the eyes of Popper.
3. Turns out that not all scientists accept Poppers theory. These bad boys make their own rules. The science the
I've also known people who believed that there was a giant worm in their stomach controlling their destiny and unbalancing their chi. Your story has somewhat less credibility than theirs.
This is the imaginary model that you and Watts made up, right?
You maybe read his website and thought it said "model" when it said something else, and then ran you mouth off for a week and a half without ever checking again and having never clicked on the link he so helpfully provided for those don't mind loading up the PDF and pressing Ctrl-F. http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf [noaa.gov]
He (watts) is a moron, a douche and a drooling mouth breather for making that fraudulent claim about the NOAA 15 year climate assessment from 2008. And so is Pielke
You're a moron for believing him and for not checking your facts - and you have the reading comprehension of a 5 year old, and not realising that I told you the model was imaginary about 5 posts ago.
No need to check that I applied this cursory check - which revealed immediately that the paper does not falsify any model let alone the imaginary model that you have been blindly salivating over, pavlov style, whenever someone rings a bell.
Of course I knew that - having read several scientists who tore Watts+Pielke limb from limb, metaphorically speaking, for this elementary, childish mistake - a mistake they themselves have stepped away from and presumably thought no more of it - though pathetically, you failed to notice they had abandoned you.
Once again, I blame Watts for this debacle. He claimed that this paper falsifies the models, when it does not. But you yourself are also to blame.
Firstly, for misinterpreting this offhand reference by a known liar as something important.
Secondly, by mistaking the reference to a paper as a reference to a model.
Thirdly, by persisting with it, despite my telling you plainly -several times - that the "NOAA 2008 Model" was imaginary and despite my repeatedly warning you to not step over that cliff. It seems, ironically, you've come to depend on me to warn you when to not go down a particular path - that you need me to guide you into the right path and strengthen your argument for you. I'm a better friend than Watts or Pielke. But what will happen when you meet someone who is not as nice to you?
In that spirit then, you should take this debacle as something of an ominous forewarning, If Watts/Pielke led you astray by their flippancy, lack of professional journalism, and just plain deception - if they led you astray in this case what else have they told you that is also a lie?
As it happens I know what that is.
You're boring me now, so we'll bring this conversation to an end. I'll offer you a choice - you can retire hurt now, and I'll speak with you again. If you keep going, I'll kill your dog. Not wound it - stone dead, no resurrection.
I see that rather than choosing to answer straight, you misquoted my remarks to frame them into an argument that you would rather answer. Should this impress me? Convince me that, in the last hour, you can pull some falsification of AGW out of your rear?
It's pretty clear to me that you are no longer up to this. The desperate spray of ridiculous clowns performing tricks to the tune of laughable fallacy? The reframing of my replies to make me the subject?
The NOAA 2008 Model debacle must be a blow for you, huh? I tried to warn you. Don't believe me? Look back over the last 7 posts or so. You just got into a blind rage or panic and start spraying fallacies left and right. I'll admit that you invoked pity.
Next time, check your facts. Heck: bring some facts.
Terrific!
Here's a video of a sewage overflow http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzWOOqPAEgs - this sewage overflow producing less of a rancid stream of effluvia than than the blog you quoted.
Yes of course. A whitewash. Did Zombie Tyndal come forward in time and hypnotise the judges? It's a conspiracy maan. A proper, time travellin' conspiracy! How did they get the earth to warm by 0.7C over 100 years? Alien technology man!
This is the imaginary model that you and Watts made up, right?
You maybe read his website and thought it said "model" when it said something else, and then ran you mouth off for a week and a half without ever checking again and having never clicked on the link he so helpfully provided for those don't mind loading up the PDF and pressing Ctrl-F.
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf
He (watts) is a moron, a douche and a drooling mouth breather for making that fraudulent claim about the NOAA 15 year climate assessment from 2008. And so is Pielke
You're a moron for believing him and for not checking your facts - and you have the reading comprehension of a 5 year old, and not realising that I told you the model was imaginary about 5 posts ago.
And yet, despite your claims of a vast, time travelling conspiracy of climatologists, you are not able to actually provide any empircal evidence of this conspiracy and instead resort to quoting verbatim from other denialists. Do you think clucking from the hen house of denialism is taken as challenge by the scientific community? Do you think that the same claim repeated by someone else makes it seem more forceful? That is just sad.,
You don’t get to define your own criteria. These are set for you by the scientific method, which in this case, specifies that the burden of proof for your assertion “AGW is not falsifiable” lies clearly with you. Which brings us back to the provision of this proof by you:
1. Provide verifiable proof of your assertion that the underlying science of AGW is not falsifiable – show working.
So [scientists] not only want to ask the question, but [they] want to tell me how to answer it too?:)
Yep. Suck it up dude.
You could provide verifiable proof of your assertion that the underlying science of AGW is not falsifiable - showing working.
Again, you're failing to understand that the burden of proof lies with the [asserter] - you're asking me to prove that there are [] fairies in [my] garden, further insisting that so long as I cannot prove that [], [we] must assume [my] assertion [of fairies in the garden] is [false].
Yep.
Do you really need a lesson on the fallacy of proving a negative?
Apparently not. You need a lesson on how to read, apparently.
Russell's teapot applies perfectly in this case – Russell surmises that in the case of the unobservable item (the teapot) the burden of proof lies with the asserter (you).
Or do you think I also have to prove to you that God does not exist, by showing working?:)
If you insist that you have some empirical proof that God does not exist, you are required to provide it, because the question of the existence of God is non-empirical unlike your own assertion. If you make some statement of belief (e.g. “I believe God does not exist”) this is perfectly acceptable but has no impact on someone who believes otherwise, and no impact on empirical reality.
In contrast, if you make an empirical assertion as you have done, and this assertion contrasts with known science, as yours does, you are unequivocally required to provide proof.
You stated your hypothesis as a negative, your method of stating your hypothesis does not challenge the rules of burden of proof. “AGW is unfalsifiable” is unambiguously a positive, yet is the same assertion. You whole premise is fraudulent.
So, if I started with the hypothesis "God does not exist", it would be my burden then too?:)
You act as if my hypothesis could be stated as a positive, rather than a negative. Would you like to demonstrate that?
Driven to trolling I see. You are embarrassing yourself.
That if you express a belief as fact e.g. 'Natural CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but anthropogenically emitted CO2 is not' that somehow, climatologists are obliged to prove you wrong?
Whoa there Trigger, you've jumped again, from the laboratory to the real world, without a critical thought. First of all, CO2 is a greenhouse gas - just like H2O is. Anthropogenically emitted CO2 is a greenhouse gas, just as butterfly emitted CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
None of these truths means that human emissions of CO2 or H2O have any significant effect on global average temperatures.
That's your assertion. Now prove it.
Further, I'm not even at the stage of asking you "wrong" or "right", we're starting with the very foundation of science - falsifiability. If climatologists can't even come up with a falsifiable hypothesis, they can't even get *near* the question of "right" or "wrong" in the scientific sense.
You'll note that in asking the question I did not ask you to restate your BELIEF that you have some way to prove you hypothesis. Your doctrines don't provide sufficient proof.
And you'll note that in answering the question I ate my own dogfood and applied my own strict criteria to my posit. I demonstrated a good example of how to do science, and repudiated the faulty premise of your question.
You don’t get to define your own criteria. These are set for you by the scientific method, which in this case, specifies that the burden of proof for your assertion “AGW is not falsifiable” lies clearly with you. Which brings us back to the provision of this proof by you:
1. Provide verifiable proof of your assertion that the underlying science of AGW is not falsifiable – show working.
So I tested your methodology by the following experiment. I said (out loud) "My hypothesis is that there are fairies in my garden".
I then waited an arbitrary amount of time.
Nobody stepped forward and falsified my hypothesis
I then went out and observed my garden. No fairies were observed
Conclusion: Fairy Wishing, Speaking Things Into Existence and all methodologies derived from wishing including yours and expecting unknown individuals to step forward and correct your fallacy don't modify reality by one atom, and so: Your theory that is somebody else's job to prove you wrong is falsified.
That isn't a falsifiable hypothesis. The falsifiable hypothesis would be the opposite, in fact, "My hypothesis is that there are no fairies in my garden. This can be falsified by the observation of fairies in my garden." You've stated no direct observation that would challenge the central conceit of your fairy hypothesis.
Yes, exactly my point. This is the fallacy that you are engaged in, and when presented in raw form even you can see it for the fallacy that it is. I’ll note that you didn’t even try to differentiate between my example of the fallacy and your use of it. That’s pretty indicative.
So that’s a problem – for you. Now that you know that you may not engage in a burden of proof fallacy to prove you hypothesis (“AGW is not falsifiable”, however will you prove your hypothesis (“AGW is not falsifiable”)? I know! You could provide verifiable proof of your assertion that the underlying science of AGW is not falsifiable - showing working.
I'm really beginning to think you don't understand the fallacy about asking someone to prove a negative - I highly suggest you look that up.
You stated your hypothesis as a negative, your method of stating your hypothesis does not challenge the rules of burden of proof. “AGW is unfalsifiable” is unambiguously a positive, yet is the same assertion. You whole premise is fraudulent.
Your theory that is somebody else's job to prove you wrong is falsified.
Wow, isn't this *exactly* what you're trying to state in your two questions?
Absolutely not. Do you imagine that you expressing a belief actually challenges the edifice of scientific findings? That if you express a belief as fact e.g. “Natural CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but anthropogenically emitted CO2 is not” that somehow, climatologists are obliged to prove you wrong?
Absolutely not.
The rules for burden of proof vary depending on whether or not the asserter is actually stating an assertion that is already scientifically proven. For brevity, we can call this set of assertions “facts” although the term “theory” is also acceptable for our purposes
a. If I restate an assertion that is already tested and proven according to the scientific method, I have no burden of proof.
You: "1. Prove your assertion that the science of AGW is not falsifiable, showing working."
Me: "I have a falsifiable hypothesis - I believe that there is no necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW.
You'll note that in asking the question I did not ask you to restate your BELIEF that you have some way to prove you hypothesis. Your doctrines don't provide sufficient proof. I'm not interested in fairy wishing, it's as meaningful to me as the screaming of a siamang - less so, since the siamang can at least convey his interest in mating and is not provably lying.
This hypothesis can be falsified by having anyone quote a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW.
So I tested your methodology by the following experiment. I said (out loud) "My hypothesis is that there are fairies in my garden".
I then waited an arbitrary amount of time.
Nobody stepped forward and falsified my hypothesis
I then went out and observed my garden. No fairies were observed
Conclusion: Fairy Wishing, Speaking Things Into Existence and all methodologies derived from wishing including yours and expecting unknown individuals to step forward and correct your fallacy don't modify reality by one atom, and so: Your theory that is somebody else's job to prove you wrong is falsified.
You: "2. Detail your hypothesis that explains the recent warming event coinciding with the historical period beginning at the industrial age, and explaining the following observations:"
Me: "I'm not defending a hypothesis here. I'm auditing yours:)
My hypothesis is that you don't have any proof for your assertion that the theory of AGW is not falsifiable, and you cannot offer any plausible hypothesis that explains the recent warming event coinciding with the historical period beginning at the industrial age.
Feel free to audit my hypothesis, by providing proof of your assertion that the theory of AGW is not falsifiable, and offering a plausible hypothesis that explains the recent warming event coinciding with the historical period beginning at the industrial age.
And you didn't answer my questions, so I'll ask them again:
1. Prove your assertion that the science of AGW is not falsifiable, showing working.
2. Detail your hypothesis that explains the recent warming event coinciding with the historical period beginning at the industrial age, and explaining the following observations:
(a) The increased concentration of CO2 in the troposphere bearing an isotope indicating it's anthropogenic origin
(b) The negative feedback mechanism that overwhelmed the warming predicted by Arrhenius and others from increased concentrations of CO2 of human origin.
(c) The cooling of the stratosphere corresponding to the warming troposphere
(d) The statistical significant ( P >.95) relationship between increased concentrations of CO2 and other GHGs and both the rate and magnitude of change
(e) The reasons why your forcing mechanism has not previously been observed.
(f) The reliability of GCM models based on the assumption of GHG induced warming and associated secondary feedback rates
One more thing:
As for the questions posed to you, you failed to answer (heck, you even failed to *attempt* to answer), so I'll fill in the blanks with my assumptions from your silence:
1) Insofar as arguing we have direct measurements of CO2 forcing, you've chosen not to argue with my assertion that you cannot jump to AGW simply from the radiative properties of a molecule. I graciously accept your concession.
By that measure you have previously admitted, on multiple occasions, that both the underlying science of AGW and the models built on that groundwork are both falsifiable and true and that you have no hypothesis or neces
Well, there's lots of material there for me to bring up in later conversations, but setting that aside you didn't answer the Question that was posed, so what we'll do is focus in on THAT and at a later stage, if time permits and I haven't lost interest, we'll return to the corpse of your argument, which you killed yourself apparently without realising it - like a drunken moron who blows the head off his own dog.
So I'll pose the question again - and remember not to adopt the false premise of assuming that science needs to prove itself to you, that it is anybodies job but yours to prove your assertions
1. Prove your assertion that the science of AGW is not falsifiable, showing working.
2. Detail your hypothesis that explains the recent warming event coinciding with the historical period beginning at the industrial age, and explaining the following observations:
(a) The increased concentration of CO2 in the troposphere bearing an isotope indicating it's anthropogenic origin
(b) The negative feedback mechanism that overwhelmed the warming predicted by Arrhenius and others from increased concentrations of CO2 of human origin.
(c) The cooling of the stratosphere corresponding to the warming troposphere
(d) The statistical significant ( P >.95) relationship between increased concentrations of CO2 and other GHGs and both the rate and magnitude of change
(e) The reasons why your forcing mechanism has not previously been observed.
(f) The reliability of GCM models based on the assumption of GHG induced warming and associated secondary feedback rates
I called your assertion (that falsifying a single model will somehow falsify the whole theory.) conflation and a logical fallacy. There is no way to interpet my remarks as agreeing with your assertion.
Your question was for a citation to "my theory" (as in "your theory"). I provided you the genesis of that citation - you used the term "the whole theory", and I in return used the term "your theory" to refer to "the theory you referred to in your statement", not "the theory which is possessively yours, and no one else's".
Now you want to argue whether or not it agreed with my assertion? One thing at a time, KM:)
So: In summary:
1. Your assertion that I said that falsifying a single model will somehow falsify the whole theory is proven a fallacy. You attempted to misquote me to support your fallacy, but were caught out.
"And...it [the model] was also falsified. So now can we give up on this AGW trope?"
....
Why then, should I believe any of your assertions? You cannot even correctly recall you own arguments, let alone support them
Firstly, because we have direct observations of CO2 forcing, and direct measurements of the *change* in forcing due to our own emissions.
You're off the reservation on this one KM:) If forcing is a direct measurement, then why is it always shown as a probability distribution?:)
Think about that for a second.
Mmm. All that second did is remind me that it is not my job to explain the workings of science to you.
Next, tell me what the direct measurement of the *change* in forcing due to our own emissions was in April 2013. Exactly what kind of forcing-o-mometer are you using for your measurement? What units does it measure in?:)
Once again - nobody needs to prove anything to you or fill in the (obviously) vast gaps in your understanding of the subject matter. Want to disprove the theory? It's UP TO YOU to disprove it. But first you'll need to learn the basics of the scientific method.
We do not need models to confirm these observations, and therefore they cannot falsify the underlying theory.
You've just proven my point - you're flatly stating here that observations cannot possibly falsify the underlying theory.
*facepalm*
You are embarrassing yourself.
Seriously. Is it really your belief that observation is not, in fact, scientific? And by extension that the sun revolves around the earth?
Are you trying to invoke pity from me? Is that the tactic here? Or you trying to make this so easy that I'll get bored and go away?
Once again: The underlying theory has been confirmed by direct observations. It follows then, that these observations are both verifiable and falsifiable by observation. For example, Tyndal observed that CO2 absorbs and re-radiates light in such a way that it traps heat in a gaseous mixture. This result can be falsified by repeating Tyndals experiment and demonstrating that CO2 is not, in fact a greenhouse gas.
So when addressing "the opposing side" be sure to use the correct pronoun!
I wasn't having a conversation with Newton, Einstein, Fourier, Tyndall, Hornborg, Popper, Arrhenius, or Hawking, and so it would've been grammatically incorrect to refer to the theory *you* were referencing by calling it "their theory".
Well, in the case of Arrhenius, Hornborg, Fourier and Tyndal it is most certainly their theory you are a
Odd that you chose to post a quote that completely contradicts your assertion. Here is what I said (with the most relevant parts included this time):
I'll say this again: Let assume you are right and the NOAA 2008 model was falsified. Or randomly pick any other model. Not out of the question - models have certainly been falsified in the past. What then?
Your view is that falsifying a single model will somehow falsify the whole theory. Conflation again. You apparently live in a world where you can engage in logical fallacy and if people don't respond in kind, this is a "win" for you. Want to falsify the theory? tell us exactly what is wrong with it, provide data to back it up, and additionally, explain the current climate effects which were correctly predicted by mainstream climatology.
I called your assertion (that falsifying a single model will somehow falsify the whole theory.) conflation and a logical fallacy. There is no way to interpet my remarks as agreeing with your assertion.
1) You stipulated to NOAA 2008 as not only falsifiable, but actually *falsified*;
I did not. Your mistake.
You said that the NOAA 2008 model was falsified, and via that falsification, the entire branch of climatology was falsified - ipso facto, because you believe this science to be falsified, you also believe it to be falsifiable. You cannot have the one without the other.
And your belief is absurd for several reasons. Firstly, because we have direct observations of CO2 forcing, and direct measurements of the *change* in forcing due to our own emissions. We do not need models to confirm these observations, and therefore they cannot falsify the underlying theory. Secondly, the NOAA 2008 model does not exist. Some comments were made by someone from NOAA *in* 2008, which apparently caused some clucking in the henhouse of denialism (specifically Messrs Watts and Pielke) - but they've gone awful quiet about it, so I suspect they already know they were wrong. But by all the evidence, NOAA did not publish a model in 2008, making your falsification look a bit ridiculous.
The "my theory" is in direct reference to your quote "the whole theory". You might not comprehend this, so I'll break it down in parts.
Or: more likely, you were attempting to portray your remarks as directed against a theory that I myself made up. Which is clearly false - you are not arguing with me, but with 150 years of observations and critical thought, and, to top it off, with the laws of thermodynamics. You are not arguing with me, but with Newton, Einstein, Fourier, Tyndall, Hornborg, Popper, Arrhenius, Hawking. So when addressing "the opposing side" be sure to use the correct pronoun!
Let's move on.
Question 1: Do you assert that AGW is falsifiable because NOAA 2008 is falsifiable? Yes or no will do, but if you wish to try and explain yourself further, please, feel free!
I'm happy to answer the question: No: I do not think that , for the reasons stated above.
Next question:
2. Why did you state that the underlying theory was not falsifiable when you clearly think that it is?
It seems you are struggling to provide honest and satisfactory answers to these questions. Perhaps you are finding it all a little overwhelming and it would be helpful if I were to ask them one at a time, moving on to the next once the last is answered in an honest, plausible and satisfactory way. So let's do that.
Let's start with number 5, since it is a pre-requisite to your central fallacy.
5. Provide a citation to justify the following assertion from you concerning something I supposedly said:
My argument is that you're claiming that a single falsifiable model makes your whole theory falsifiable
Please be sure to find a citation in which I mention "my theory".
Are you unable to provide this citation? Answer either yes, and provide the citation, or no you cannot provide the citation
I notice that you've edited out certain sections of this discussion, and chose to reply to others without addressing the question. So we'll start with these items, which I have numbered for your convenience
1. [re: your theory that climate sensitivity to CO2 varies as a function of time] Specify the exact nature of this variance, and describe the cause, detail your observations and cite the paper in which your work was published:
In other words, show working.
2. [re: Your theory on AGW falsifiability] Will falsifying a single model falsify the whole theory of AGW? Answer yes or no, otherwise I will assume one as the lie, and the other as your actual view.
3. In one of the following post you told a lie. Which one of these statements is a lie?
My argument is that you're claiming that a single falsifiable model makes your whole theory falsifiable
Citation please. Please be sure to find a citation in which I mention "my theory".
6. Provide this citation:
That's not a strawman at all - it is the direct implication of comparing modern CO2 levels with ancient CO2 levels during a higher temperature period.
So according to you, climate models predict that when the CO2 levels reach 400ppm the temperature will immediately rise to the levels of the Eocene. Please cite these predictions.
7. Re: you assertion
Now, if you don't believe that anyone is asserting that in the NOAA brief, please, read it again.
Up to you to PROVE that NOAA predicted what you assert they predicted, that is, temperatures will rise immediately to the levels of the Eocene, once 400ppm of CO2 is reached.
Provide a citation from NOAA in which they predicted that temperatures will rise immediately to the levels of the Eocene, once 400ppm of CO2 is reached.
Deny it all you like. Odd that your strategy to convince the world that you have solid evidence that the current theory of climate change due to anthropogenic GHGs is incorrect and your own (as yet unspecified) theory explaining the recent warming event is factual is to basically to contradict your previous statements and then deny you ever made them. You might be impressed by similar shenanigans.
I remain unconvinced.
Of course you remain unconvinced - you're a believer. Your opinion is based on faith, not on science, and instead of addressing the internal inconsistencies of your thoughts, you futilely seek to find some sort of semantic contradiction in my statements.
The fact of the matter is that you are mistaken when you state that I'm asserting that there is *no* sensitivity of global average temperature from CO2 - that's a convenient strawman for you to use to ignore that whatever sensitivity there is, it is obviously significantly lower (and keeps getting revised lower) than the alarmists have claimed for decades.
What would you do if global warming from CO2 just wasn't that significant?
Mmm. As I just highlighted to your buddy, feel free to continue to pretend that science equivalent to fairy wishing: Yes of course - science is the same as wishing on fairies, and the current climate swing is caused by phlostigen imbalance because of there are not enough people who believe in fairies. Be sure to remain true to your convictions, and refuse any western medical treatment if you feel ill, and be sure to avoid any other products of the science that you scorn, like electricity, sanitation and the internet. Perhaps you could get a job as a tanner, a stone cutter for a cathedral, or a charcoal maker, and live out your short life in the woods far away from the corruptions of science.
So you hypothesise that climate sensitivity to CO2 varies as a function of time? Interesting. Specify the exact nature of this variance, and describe the cause, detail your observations and cite the paper in which your work was published, In other words, show working.
It certainly has if you follow the IPCCs ever downward revisions:)
I repeat: Specify the exact nature of this variance, and describe the cause, detail your observations and cite the paper in which your work was published, In other words, show working.
What's the problem here? Are you so ignorant of science and the scientific method that you aren't actually able to shape the required material? Specify the exact nature of this variance in CO2 sensitivity as a function of time, and describe the cause, detail your observations and cite the paper in which your work was published, In other words, show working.
Your request to burn a strawman is rejected. Are you denying that this: falsifying a single model will somehow falsify the whole theory. is the essence of the fallacious argument you've been trying to make? Is this, or is it not, an accurate summary of your assertion? Yes or no.
"Did you stop beating your wife, yes or no?":)
"Did you stop beating your wife, yes or no?" is not binary construct. falsifying a single model will somehow falsify the whole theory is binary, it's true or it is not. Is this your view? Will falsifying a single model falsify the whole theory?
My argument is that you're claiming that a single falsifiable model makes your whole theory falsifiable
Citation please. Please be sure to find a citation in which I mention "my theory".
Did I ask for an apology? I was merely pointing out that your lying and fallacy is transparent. Take this example: in your post immediately previous you said:
Tell me, when do you expect the apocalypse from 400ppm to come? I highlighted your strawman:
In fact the point of discussion was your own assertion, specifically, your assertion that the climate exhibits no sensitivity to CO2 concentration. Nevertheless I know full well that your various assertions are contradictory, this is just one more to add to a long list.
Don't be silly, I've never said such a thing.
Deny it all you like. Odd that your strategy to convince the world that you have solid evidence that the current theory of climate change due to anthropogenic GHGs is incorrect and your own (as yet unspecified) theory explaining the recent warming event is factual is to basically to contradict your previous statements and then deny you ever made them. You might be impressed by similar shenanigans.
I remain unconvinced.
That being said, it is a fact that over the past 17-19 years (depending on the data set you use), there has been no observed sensitivity between rising CO2 concentrations and global average temperature. Whether or not in the long run any temperature sensitivity to CO2 concentrations is non-zero, positive, and discernible is an open question.
So you hypothesise that climate sensitivity to CO2 varies as a function of time? Interesting. Specify the exact nature of this variance, and describe the cause, detail your observations and cite the paper in which your work was published, In other words, show working.
Me: "Show me your falsifiable hypothesis for AGW"
You: "You've already shown that! NOAA 2008 was falsifiable!"
Me: "And...it was also falsified. So now can we give up on this AGW trope?"
You: "Oh, but NOAA 2008 was just one model. AGW still lives on!"
And here you misrepresent a conversation from yesterday as if it were impossible for me to flip back a page and actually read the text of the conversation. Ugh.. Such a strain to move the mouse.... oh. Look's like that wasn't what happened at all. Sorry.
Your view is that falsifying a single model will somehow falsify the whole theory.
And your view is that any number of models can be falsified, but your hypothesis will still be true:) This isn't how you do science:)
Your request to burn a strawman is rejected. Are you denying that this: falsifying a single model will somehow falsify the whole theory. is the essence of the fallacious argument you've been trying to make? Is this, or is it not, an accurate summary of your assertion? Yes or no.
What I mean is that when people call you on things, you don't apologize, you don't clarify, you don't present facts, you don't show a willingness to learn despite admitting to being ignorant of the science.
When you "call me on things", you do so with fallacious argument, inaccurate facts, ambiguous straw men, and a complete unwillingness to open your mind to anything beyond your religious belief.
Stop whining. I'm not your mummy, no amount of whinging will convince me to give you a lolly.
Why should I apologize to you when you do that?
Did I ask for an apology? I was merely pointing out that your lying and fallacy is transparent. Take this example: in your post immediately previous you said:
Tell me, when do you expect the apocalypse from 400ppm to come?
I highlighted your strawman:
Tell me, why did you engage in burning a strawman? If you have an actual argument to make, why did you not make that argument, rather offering yet more fallacy?
Rather than acknowledge your strawman and indeed, acknowledge the need to present facts and argue intelligently for them, you simply decided to edit out this discussion - even though that comment is the central point of this thread. Why do you not want to address the actual topic of this conversation?
Slashdot Mirror
It isn't the future, of course, which is why this focus shift to what is theoretically achievable - Mars. Mars (and possibly Venus) really represent the limit of practical human travel + settlement from earth. Neither really represents an attractive proposition for long term settlement, except for those who are welded, ideologically, to the idea of human settlement. The idea that mysterious "tech" will make Mars interesting for people to live on, whilst the same "tech" magically does not apply to Earth, with all it's culture, natural beauty, diversity and frankly, convenience (survivable gravity, lack of killer radiation, breathable air) and thus life on Earth becomes suddenly boring - this is really a magical premise, like Irons Mans suit or Batman tech.
Meanwhile robots and probes plunge through the atmosphere of jupiter, land on Titan, and escape the solar system itself. They went to Mars already - 40 years ago.
The answer depends on politics!
No it doesn't
No need to check that I applied this cursory check - which revealed immediately that the paper does not falsify any model let alone the imaginary model that you have been blindly salivating over, pavlov style, whenever someone rings a bell.
Sure it does. Search for "rule out".
Apparently you can't read. And I see that you aren't really committed to proving Watts' conjecture, which is a wise move on your part.
We've failed to witness any plausible rebuttal from you, so we'll move on.
Of course I knew that - having read several scientists who tore Watts+Pielke limb from limb, metaphorically speaking, for this elementary, childish mistake - a mistake they themselves have stepped away from and presumably thought no more of it - though pathetically, you failed to notice they had abandoned you.
Once again, I blame Watts for this debacle. He claimed that this paper falsifies the models, when it does not. But you yourself are also to blame.
Firstly, for misinterpreting this offhand reference by a known liar as something important.
Secondly, by mistaking the reference to a paper as a reference to a model.
Surely you understood the context to mean NOAA 2008 was referring to the model HADcm3.
That is obviously my point. Can't you read? I understood perfectly what was going on - I knew, in fact, since you first raised it in our last conversation.
You, in contrast, were completely taken in by that liar Watts.
Would you like me to go back over this conversation and draw out the times you made reference to the fairy tale model?
How many times has he (Watts) fooled you now?
Thirdly, by persisting with it, despite my telling you plainly -several times - that the "NOAA 2008 Model" was imaginary and despite my repeatedly warning you to not step over that cliff. It seems, ironically, you've come to depend on me to warn you when to not go down a particular path - that you need me to guide you into the right path and strengthen your argument for you. I'm a better friend than Watts or Pielke. But what will happen when you meet someone who is not as nice to you?
In that spirit then, you should take this debacle as something of an ominous forewarning, If Watts/Pielke led you astray by their flippancy, lack of professional journalism, and just plain deception - if they led you astray in this case what else have they told you that is also a lie?
As it happens I know what that is.
You're boring me now, so we'll bring this conversation to an end. I'll offer you a choice - you can retire hurt now, and I'll speak with you again. If you keep going, I'll kill your dog. Not wound it - stone dead, no resurrection.
I'm allergic, so I don't have a dog
I was, of course referring to you metaphorical dog, which is you central fallacious construct: there is no necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW - I called it a dog, rather than an construct or fallacy, because of your emotive attachment to it.
What of this necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW?
1. Popper doesn't demand that there be a "sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW" - for Popper and his adherents, that would be like saying that astronomy (which has no "sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement" , being composed of multiple hypotheses) is unscientific.
2. Your proof of your hypothesis: (there is no necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW ) fails the test set by Popper. Your proof - which put succintly, is "There is no falsifiable hypothesis because I have never seen one" is Inductivist and therefore fallacious in the eyes of Popper.
3. Turns out that not all scientists accept Poppers theory. These bad boys make their own rules. The science the
Try to find something original next time
For example: Necessary according to whom?
Did you watch the one with the screeching monkey?
I've also known people who believed that there was a giant worm in their stomach controlling their destiny and unbalancing their chi. Your story has somewhat less credibility than theirs.
This is the imaginary model that you and Watts made up, right?
You maybe read his website and thought it said "model" when it said something else, and then ran you mouth off for a week and a half without ever checking again and having never clicked on the link he so helpfully provided for those don't mind loading up the PDF and pressing Ctrl-F. http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf [noaa.gov]
He (watts) is a moron, a douche and a drooling mouth breather for making that fraudulent claim about the NOAA 15 year climate assessment from 2008. And so is Pielke
You're a moron for believing him and for not checking your facts - and you have the reading comprehension of a 5 year old, and not realising that I told you the model was imaginary about 5 posts ago.
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf [noaa.gov]
Search for the phrase "rule out".
No need to check that I applied this cursory check - which revealed immediately that the paper does not falsify any model let alone the imaginary model that you have been blindly salivating over, pavlov style, whenever someone rings a bell.
Of course I knew that - having read several scientists who tore Watts+Pielke limb from limb, metaphorically speaking, for this elementary, childish mistake - a mistake they themselves have stepped away from and presumably thought no more of it - though pathetically, you failed to notice they had abandoned you.
Once again, I blame Watts for this debacle. He claimed that this paper falsifies the models, when it does not. But you yourself are also to blame.
Firstly, for misinterpreting this offhand reference by a known liar as something important.
Secondly, by mistaking the reference to a paper as a reference to a model.
Thirdly, by persisting with it, despite my telling you plainly -several times - that the "NOAA 2008 Model" was imaginary and despite my repeatedly warning you to not step over that cliff. It seems, ironically, you've come to depend on me to warn you when to not go down a particular path - that you need me to guide you into the right path and strengthen your argument for you. I'm a better friend than Watts or Pielke. But what will happen when you meet someone who is not as nice to you?
In that spirit then, you should take this debacle as something of an ominous forewarning, If Watts/Pielke led you astray by their flippancy, lack of professional journalism, and just plain deception - if they led you astray in this case what else have they told you that is also a lie?
As it happens I know what that is.
You're boring me now, so we'll bring this conversation to an end. I'll offer you a choice - you can retire hurt now, and I'll speak with you again. If you keep going, I'll kill your dog. Not wound it - stone dead, no resurrection.
It's pretty clear to me that you are no longer up to this. The desperate spray of ridiculous clowns performing tricks to the tune of laughable fallacy? The reframing of my replies to make me the subject?
The NOAA 2008 Model debacle must be a blow for you, huh? I tried to warn you. Don't believe me? Look back over the last 7 posts or so. You just got into a blind rage or panic and start spraying fallacies left and right. I'll admit that you invoked pity.
Next time, check your facts. Heck: bring some facts.
Now, your guy might have more intelligence than a tapeworm. But what about two? Or - three? Hmmmm?
Terrific! Here's a video of a sewage overflow http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzWOOqPAEgs - this sewage overflow producing less of a rancid stream of effluvia than than the blog you quoted.
Yes of course. A whitewash. Did Zombie Tyndal come forward in time and hypnotise the judges? It's a conspiracy maan. A proper, time travellin' conspiracy! How did they get the earth to warm by 0.7C over 100 years? Alien technology man!
You maybe read his website and thought it said "model" when it said something else, and then ran you mouth off for a week and a half without ever checking again and having never clicked on the link he so helpfully provided for those don't mind loading up the PDF and pressing Ctrl-F. http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf
He (watts) is a moron, a douche and a drooling mouth breather for making that fraudulent claim about the NOAA 15 year climate assessment from 2008. And so is Pielke
You're a moron for believing him and for not checking your facts - and you have the reading comprehension of a 5 year old, and not realising that I told you the model was imaginary about 5 posts ago.
Kind of ironic, since you yourself have claimed that climate models are falisfiable. Do you know what falsifiability is?
And yet, despite your claims of a vast, time travelling conspiracy of climatologists, you are not able to actually provide any empircal evidence of this conspiracy and instead resort to quoting verbatim from other denialists. Do you think clucking from the hen house of denialism is taken as challenge by the scientific community? Do you think that the same claim repeated by someone else makes it seem more forceful? That is just sad.,
You don’t get to define your own criteria. These are set for you by the scientific method, which in this case, specifies that the burden of proof for your assertion “AGW is not falsifiable” lies clearly with you. Which brings us back to the provision of this proof by you:
1. Provide verifiable proof of your assertion that the underlying science of AGW is not falsifiable – show working.
So [scientists] not only want to ask the question, but [they] want to tell me how to answer it too? :)
Yep. Suck it up dude.
You could provide verifiable proof of your assertion that the underlying science of AGW is not falsifiable - showing working.
Again, you're failing to understand that the burden of proof lies with the [asserter] - you're asking me to prove that there are [] fairies in [my] garden, further insisting that so long as I cannot prove that [], [we] must assume [my] assertion [of fairies in the garden] is [false].
Yep.
Do you really need a lesson on the fallacy of proving a negative?
Apparently not. You need a lesson on how to read, apparently.
Here, learn about Russell's teapot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
Russell's teapot applies perfectly in this case – Russell surmises that in the case of the unobservable item (the teapot) the burden of proof lies with the asserter (you).
Or do you think I also have to prove to you that God does not exist, by showing working? :)
If you insist that you have some empirical proof that God does not exist, you are required to provide it, because the question of the existence of God is non-empirical unlike your own assertion. If you make some statement of belief (e.g. “I believe God does not exist”) this is perfectly acceptable but has no impact on someone who believes otherwise, and no impact on empirical reality.
In contrast, if you make an empirical assertion as you have done, and this assertion contrasts with known science, as yours does, you are unequivocally required to provide proof.
You stated your hypothesis as a negative, your method of stating your hypothesis does not challenge the rules of burden of proof. “AGW is unfalsifiable” is unambiguously a positive, yet is the same assertion. You whole premise is fraudulent.
So, if I started with the hypothesis "God does not exist", it would be my burden then too? :)
You act as if my hypothesis could be stated as a positive, rather than a negative. Would you like to demonstrate that?
Driven to trolling I see. You are embarrassing yourself.
That if you express a belief as fact e.g. 'Natural CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but anthropogenically emitted CO2 is not' that somehow, climatologists are obliged to prove you wrong?
Whoa there Trigger, you've jumped again, from the laboratory to the real world, without a critical thought. First of all, CO2 is a greenhouse gas - just like H2O is. Anthropogenically emitted CO2 is a greenhouse gas, just as butterfly emitted CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
None of these truths means that human emissions of CO2 or H2O have any significant effect on global average temperatures.
That's your assertion. Now prove it.
Further, I'm not even at the stage of asking you "wrong" or "right", we're starting with the very foundation of science - falsifiability. If climatologists can't even come up with a falsifiable hypothesis, they can't even get *near* the question of "right" or "wrong" in the scientific sense.
You say that c
And you'll note that in answering the question I ate my own dogfood and applied my own strict criteria to my posit. I demonstrated a good example of how to do science, and repudiated the faulty premise of your question.
You don’t get to define your own criteria. These are set for you by the scientific method, which in this case, specifies that the burden of proof for your assertion “AGW is not falsifiable” lies clearly with you. Which brings us back to the provision of this proof by you:
1. Provide verifiable proof of your assertion that the underlying science of AGW is not falsifiable – show working.
So I tested your methodology by the following experiment. I said (out loud) "My hypothesis is that there are fairies in my garden".
I then waited an arbitrary amount of time.
Nobody stepped forward and falsified my hypothesis
I then went out and observed my garden. No fairies were observed
Conclusion: Fairy Wishing, Speaking Things Into Existence and all methodologies derived from wishing including yours and expecting unknown individuals to step forward and correct your fallacy don't modify reality by one atom, and so: Your theory that is somebody else's job to prove you wrong is falsified.
That isn't a falsifiable hypothesis. The falsifiable hypothesis would be the opposite, in fact, "My hypothesis is that there are no fairies in my garden. This can be falsified by the observation of fairies in my garden." You've stated no direct observation that would challenge the central conceit of your fairy hypothesis.
Yes, exactly my point. This is the fallacy that you are engaged in, and when presented in raw form even you can see it for the fallacy that it is. I’ll note that you didn’t even try to differentiate between my example of the fallacy and your use of it. That’s pretty indicative.
So that’s a problem – for you. Now that you know that you may not engage in a burden of proof fallacy to prove you hypothesis (“AGW is not falsifiable”, however will you prove your hypothesis (“AGW is not falsifiable”)? I know! You could provide verifiable proof of your assertion that the underlying science of AGW is not falsifiable - showing working.
I'm really beginning to think you don't understand the fallacy about asking someone to prove a negative - I highly suggest you look that up.
You stated your hypothesis as a negative, your method of stating your hypothesis does not challenge the rules of burden of proof. “AGW is unfalsifiable” is unambiguously a positive, yet is the same assertion. You whole premise is fraudulent.
Your theory that is somebody else's job to prove you wrong is falsified.
Wow, isn't this *exactly* what you're trying to state in your two questions?
Absolutely not. Do you imagine that you expressing a belief actually challenges the edifice of scientific findings? That if you express a belief as fact e.g. “Natural CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but anthropogenically emitted CO2 is not” that somehow, climatologists are obliged to prove you wrong?
Absolutely not.
The rules for burden of proof vary depending on whether or not the asserter is actually stating an assertion that is already scientifically proven. For brevity, we can call this set of assertions “facts” although the term “theory” is also acceptable for our purposes
a. If I restate an assertion that is already tested and proven according to the scientific method, I have no burden of proof.
b. If I state a
This hypothesis can be falsified by having anyone quote a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW.
So I tested your methodology by the following experiment. I said (out loud) "My hypothesis is that there are fairies in my garden".
I then waited an arbitrary amount of time.
Nobody stepped forward and falsified my hypothesis
I then went out and observed my garden. No fairies were observed
Conclusion: Fairy Wishing, Speaking Things Into Existence and all methodologies derived from wishing including yours and expecting unknown individuals to step forward and correct your fallacy don't modify reality by one atom, and so: Your theory that is somebody else's job to prove you wrong is falsified.
You: "2. Detail your hypothesis that explains the recent warming event coinciding with the historical period beginning at the industrial age, and explaining the following observations:"
Me: "I'm not defending a hypothesis here. I'm auditing yours :)
My hypothesis is that you don't have any proof for your assertion that the theory of AGW is not falsifiable, and you cannot offer any plausible hypothesis that explains the recent warming event coinciding with the historical period beginning at the industrial age.
Feel free to audit my hypothesis, by providing proof of your assertion that the theory of AGW is not falsifiable, and offering a plausible hypothesis that explains the recent warming event coinciding with the historical period beginning at the industrial age.
And you didn't answer my questions, so I'll ask them again:
1. Prove your assertion that the science of AGW is not falsifiable, showing working.
2. Detail your hypothesis that explains the recent warming event coinciding with the historical period beginning at the industrial age, and explaining the following observations:
(a) The increased concentration of CO2 in the troposphere bearing an isotope indicating it's anthropogenic origin
(b) The negative feedback mechanism that overwhelmed the warming predicted by Arrhenius and others from increased concentrations of CO2 of human origin.
(c) The cooling of the stratosphere corresponding to the warming troposphere
(d) The statistical significant ( P > .95) relationship between increased concentrations of CO2 and other GHGs and both the rate and magnitude of change
(e) The reasons why your forcing mechanism has not previously been observed.
(f) The reliability of GCM models based on the assumption of GHG induced warming and associated secondary feedback rates
One more thing:
As for the questions posed to you, you failed to answer (heck, you even failed to *attempt* to answer), so I'll fill in the blanks with my assumptions from your silence:
1) Insofar as arguing we have direct measurements of CO2 forcing, you've chosen not to argue with my assertion that you cannot jump to AGW simply from the radiative properties of a molecule. I graciously accept your concession.
By that measure you have previously admitted, on multiple occasions, that both the underlying science of AGW and the models built on that groundwork are both falsifiable and true and that you have no hypothesis or neces
1. Prove your assertion that the science of AGW is not falsifiable, showing working.
2. Detail your hypothesis that explains the recent warming event coinciding with the historical period beginning at the industrial age, and explaining the following observations:
(a) The increased concentration of CO2 in the troposphere bearing an isotope indicating it's anthropogenic origin
(b) The negative feedback mechanism that overwhelmed the warming predicted by Arrhenius and others from increased concentrations of CO2 of human origin.
(c) The cooling of the stratosphere corresponding to the warming troposphere
(d) The statistical significant ( P > .95) relationship between increased concentrations of CO2 and other GHGs and both the rate and magnitude of change
(e) The reasons why your forcing mechanism has not previously been observed.
(f) The reliability of GCM models based on the assumption of GHG induced warming and associated secondary feedback rates
I called your assertion (that falsifying a single model will somehow falsify the whole theory.) conflation and a logical fallacy. There is no way to interpet my remarks as agreeing with your assertion.
Your question was for a citation to "my theory" (as in "your theory"). I provided you the genesis of that citation - you used the term "the whole theory", and I in return used the term "your theory" to refer to "the theory you referred to in your statement", not "the theory which is possessively yours, and no one else's". Now you want to argue whether or not it agreed with my assertion? One thing at a time, KM :)
So: In summary:
1. Your assertion that I said that falsifying a single model will somehow falsify the whole theory is proven a fallacy. You attempted to misquote me to support your fallacy, but were caught out.
2. You are now claiming to have never made that claim yourself: Here is you saying it (from http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3738299&cid=43731895)
"And...it [the model] was also falsified. So now can we give up on this AGW trope?"
Firstly, because we have direct observations of CO2 forcing, and direct measurements of the *change* in forcing due to our own emissions.
You're off the reservation on this one KM :) If forcing is a direct measurement, then why is it always shown as a probability distribution? :)
Think about that for a second.
Mmm. All that second did is remind me that it is not my job to explain the workings of science to you.
Next, tell me what the direct measurement of the *change* in forcing due to our own emissions was in April 2013. Exactly what kind of forcing-o-mometer are you using for your measurement? What units does it measure in? :)
Once again - nobody needs to prove anything to you or fill in the (obviously) vast gaps in your understanding of the subject matter. Want to disprove the theory? It's UP TO YOU to disprove it. But first you'll need to learn the basics of the scientific method.
We do not need models to confirm these observations, and therefore they cannot falsify the underlying theory.
You've just proven my point - you're flatly stating here that observations cannot possibly falsify the underlying theory.
*facepalm*
You are embarrassing yourself.
Seriously. Is it really your belief that observation is not, in fact, scientific? And by extension that the sun revolves around the earth?
Are you trying to invoke pity from me? Is that the tactic here? Or you trying to make this so easy that I'll get bored and go away?
Once again: The underlying theory has been confirmed by direct observations. It follows then, that these observations are both verifiable and falsifiable by observation. For example, Tyndal observed that CO2 absorbs and re-radiates light in such a way that it traps heat in a gaseous mixture. This result can be falsified by repeating Tyndals experiment and demonstrating that CO2 is not, in fact a greenhouse gas.
So when addressing "the opposing side" be sure to use the correct pronoun!
I wasn't having a conversation with Newton, Einstein, Fourier, Tyndall, Hornborg, Popper, Arrhenius, or Hawking, and so it would've been grammatically incorrect to refer to the theory *you* were referencing by calling it "their theory".
Well, in the case of Arrhenius, Hornborg, Fourier and Tyndal it is most certainly their theory you are a
Your view is that falsifying a single model will somehow falsify the whole theory. Conflation again. You apparently live in a world where you can engage in logical fallacy and if people don't respond in kind, this is a "win" for you. Want to falsify the theory? tell us exactly what is wrong with it, provide data to back it up, and additionally, explain the current climate effects which were correctly predicted by mainstream climatology.
I called your assertion (that falsifying a single model will somehow falsify the whole theory.) conflation and a logical fallacy. There is no way to interpet my remarks as agreeing with your assertion.
1) You stipulated to NOAA 2008 as not only falsifiable, but actually *falsified*;
I did not. Your mistake.
You said that the NOAA 2008 model was falsified, and via that falsification, the entire branch of climatology was falsified - ipso facto, because you believe this science to be falsified, you also believe it to be falsifiable. You cannot have the one without the other.
And your belief is absurd for several reasons. Firstly, because we have direct observations of CO2 forcing, and direct measurements of the *change* in forcing due to our own emissions. We do not need models to confirm these observations, and therefore they cannot falsify the underlying theory. Secondly, the NOAA 2008 model does not exist. Some comments were made by someone from NOAA *in* 2008, which apparently caused some clucking in the henhouse of denialism (specifically Messrs Watts and Pielke) - but they've gone awful quiet about it, so I suspect they already know they were wrong. But by all the evidence, NOAA did not publish a model in 2008, making your falsification look a bit ridiculous.
The "my theory" is in direct reference to your quote "the whole theory". You might not comprehend this, so I'll break it down in parts.
Or: more likely, you were attempting to portray your remarks as directed against a theory that I myself made up. Which is clearly false - you are not arguing with me, but with 150 years of observations and critical thought, and, to top it off, with the laws of thermodynamics. You are not arguing with me, but with Newton, Einstein, Fourier, Tyndall, Hornborg, Popper, Arrhenius, Hawking. So when addressing "the opposing side" be sure to use the correct pronoun!
Let's move on.
Question 1: Do you assert that AGW is falsifiable because NOAA 2008 is falsifiable? Yes or no will do, but if you wish to try and explain yourself further, please, feel free!
I'm happy to answer the question: No: I do not think that , for the reasons stated above.
Next question:
2. Why did you state that the underlying theory was not falsifiable when you clearly think that it is?
Let's start with number 5, since it is a pre-requisite to your central fallacy.
5. Provide a citation to justify the following assertion from you concerning something I supposedly said:
My argument is that you're claiming that a single falsifiable model makes your whole theory falsifiable
Please be sure to find a citation in which I mention "my theory".
Are you unable to provide this citation? Answer either yes, and provide the citation, or no you cannot provide the citation
1. [re: your theory that climate sensitivity to CO2 varies as a function of time] Specify the exact nature of this variance, and describe the cause, detail your observations and cite the paper in which your work was published:
In other words, show working.
2. [re: Your theory on AGW falsifiability] Will falsifying a single model falsify the whole theory of AGW? Answer yes or no, otherwise I will assume one as the lie, and the other as your actual view.
3. In one of the following post you told a lie. Which one of these statements is a lie?
(a) Here, you claim that the theory of AGW is not falsifiable: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3738299&cid=43695417 [slashdot.org]
(b) Here, you say it is: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3738299&cid=43731895 [slashdot.org], and you assert that it has, fact, been falsified by means of falsifying a model (the "NOAA 2008 Model")
Answer with a or b.
4. Here, you assert several things that I supposedly said, for the sake of constructing a whole conversation that never, in fact, occurred: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3738299&cid=43731895 [slashdot.org]
Explain these remarks in detail.
5. Provide this citation:
My argument is that you're claiming that a single falsifiable model makes your whole theory falsifiable
Citation please. Please be sure to find a citation in which I mention "my theory".
6. Provide this citation:
That's not a strawman at all - it is the direct implication of comparing modern CO2 levels with ancient CO2 levels during a higher temperature period.
So according to you, climate models predict that when the CO2 levels reach 400ppm the temperature will immediately rise to the levels of the Eocene. Please cite these predictions.
7. Re: you assertion
Now, if you don't believe that anyone is asserting that in the NOAA brief, please, read it again.
Up to you to PROVE that NOAA predicted what you assert they predicted, that is, temperatures will rise immediately to the levels of the Eocene, once 400ppm of CO2 is reached.
Provide a citation from NOAA in which they predicted that temperatures will rise immediately to the levels of the Eocene, once 400ppm of CO2 is reached.
Deny it all you like. Odd that your strategy to convince the world that you have solid evidence that the current theory of climate change due to anthropogenic GHGs is incorrect and your own (as yet unspecified) theory explaining the recent warming event is factual is to basically to contradict your previous statements and then deny you ever made them. You might be impressed by similar shenanigans.
I remain unconvinced.
Of course you remain unconvinced - you're a believer. Your opinion is based on faith, not on science, and instead of addressing the internal inconsistencies of your thoughts, you futilely seek to find some sort of semantic contradiction in my statements. The fact of the matter is that you are mistaken when you state that I'm asserting that there is *no* sensitivity of global average temperature from CO2 - that's a convenient strawman for you to use to ignore that whatever sensitivity there is, it is obviously significantly lower (and keeps getting revised lower) than the alarmists have claimed for decades. What would you do if global warming from CO2 just wasn't that significant?
Mmm. As I just highlighted to your buddy, feel free to continue to pretend that science equivalent to fairy wishing: Yes of course - science is the same as wishing on fairies, and the current climate swing is caused by phlostigen imbalance because of there are not enough people who believe in fairies. Be sure to remain true to your convictions, and refuse any western medical treatment if you feel ill, and be sure to avoid any other products of the science that you scorn, like electricity, sanitation and the internet. Perhaps you could get a job as a tanner, a stone cutter for a cathedral, or a charcoal maker, and live out your short life in the woods far away from the corruptions of science.
So you hypothesise that climate sensitivity to CO2 varies as a function of time? Interesting. Specify the exact nature of this variance, and describe the cause, detail your observations and cite the paper in which your work was published, In other words, show working.
It certainly has if you follow the IPCCs ever downward revisions :)
I repeat: Specify the exact nature of this variance, and describe the cause, detail your observations and cite the paper in which your work was published, In other words, show working.
What's the problem here? Are you so ignorant of science and the scientific method that you aren't actually able to shape the required material? Specify the exact nature of this variance in CO2 sensitivity as a function of time, and describe the cause, detail your observations and cite the paper in which your work was published, In other words, show working.
Your request to burn a strawman is rejected. Are you denying that this: falsifying a single model will somehow falsify the whole theory. is the essence of the fallacious argument you've been trying to make? Is this, or is it not, an accurate summary of your assertion? Yes or no.
"Did you stop beating your wife, yes or no?" :)
"Did you stop beating your wife, yes or no?" is not binary construct. falsifying a single model will somehow falsify the whole theory is binary, it's true or it is not. Is this your view? Will falsifying a single model falsify the whole theory?
My argument is that you're claiming that a single falsifiable model makes your whole theory falsifiable
Citation please. Please be sure to find a citation in which I mention "my theory".
Did I ask for an apology? I was merely pointing out that your lying and fallacy is transparent. Take this example: in your post immediately previous you said: Tell me, when do you expect the apocalypse from 400ppm to come? I highlighted your strawman:
In fact the point of discussion was your own assertion, specifically, your assertion that the climate exhibits no sensitivity to CO2 concentration. Nevertheless I know full well that your various assertions are contradictory, this is just one more to add to a long list.
Don't be silly, I've never said such a thing.
Deny it all you like. Odd that your strategy to convince the world that you have solid evidence that the current theory of climate change due to anthropogenic GHGs is incorrect and your own (as yet unspecified) theory explaining the recent warming event is factual is to basically to contradict your previous statements and then deny you ever made them. You might be impressed by similar shenanigans.
I remain unconvinced.
That being said, it is a fact that over the past 17-19 years (depending on the data set you use), there has been no observed sensitivity between rising CO2 concentrations and global average temperature. Whether or not in the long run any temperature sensitivity to CO2 concentrations is non-zero, positive, and discernible is an open question.
So you hypothesise that climate sensitivity to CO2 varies as a function of time? Interesting. Specify the exact nature of this variance, and describe the cause, detail your observations and cite the paper in which your work was published, In other words, show working.
Me: "Show me your falsifiable hypothesis for AGW"
You: "You've already shown that! NOAA 2008 was falsifiable!"
Me: "And...it was also falsified. So now can we give up on this AGW trope?"
You: "Oh, but NOAA 2008 was just one model. AGW still lives on!"
And here you misrepresent a conversation from yesterday as if it were impossible for me to flip back a page and actually read the text of the conversation. Ugh.. Such a strain to move the mouse.... oh. Look's like that wasn't what happened at all. Sorry.
Your view is that falsifying a single model will somehow falsify the whole theory.
And your view is that any number of models can be falsified, but your hypothesis will still be true :) This isn't how you do science :)
Your request to burn a strawman is rejected. Are you denying that this: falsifying a single model will somehow falsify the whole theory. is the essence of the fallacious argument you've been trying to make? Is this, or is it not, an accurate summary of your assertion? Yes or no.
What I mean is that when people call you on things, you don't apologize, you don't clarify, you don't present facts, you don't show a willingness to learn despite admitting to being ignorant of the science.
When you "call me on things", you do so with fallacious argument, inaccurate facts, ambiguous straw men, and a complete unwillingness to open your mind to anything beyond your religious belief.
Stop whining. I'm not your mummy, no amount of whinging will convince me to give you a lolly.
Why should I apologize to you when you do that?
Did I ask for an apology? I was merely pointing out that your lying and fallacy is transparent. Take this example: in your post immediately previous you said:
Tell me, when do you expect the apocalypse from 400ppm to come? I highlighted your strawman: Tell me, why did you engage in burning a strawman? If you have an actual argument to make, why did you not make that argument, rather offering yet more fallacy? Rather than acknowledge your strawman and indeed, acknowledge the need to present facts and argue intelligently for them, you simply decided to edit out this discussion - even though that comment is the central point of this thread. Why do you not want to address the actual topic of this conversation?