Nope, no explanation of your lying there. Did you miss the exposition of your lies? Why do you not want to provide a necessary and verifiable hypothesis statement explaining the apparent self invalidation of your central tenet? To summarise:
Your entire platform rests on the science not being falsifiable, yet all along, you thought it was. You were lying from the start. You said that NOAA 2008 includes a statement on falsification, in contradiction to your central platform. You didn't demonstrate any actual falsification of the models referenced in the paper, but now claim that the NOAA 2008 falsifies not only the models, but the underlying theory. To cover your arse when called on the latter specifically, you modified your citation of yourself to replace the reference to the model with a reference to the underlying theory. You lied on top of your lie. To sum up:
Falsifiabilty
You claimed that the models and the theory were not falsifiable, when all along you thought they were. You lied, your entire platform is a lie and a fraud.
Actually Falsified?
You initially claimed that the NOAA 2008 might 'be falsified'. You didn't demonstrate any actual falsification. You then claimed *it had been falsified*. The paper is referring to the HadCM3 climate model (Gordon et al. 2000). You tried to imply that it was referring to the underlying theory. Your attempted falsification failed, but you conflate this with a renewed claim of unfalsifability, whilst your attempted falsification is still out there,dangling like a noose.
Your lies
1. Claiming that the models and science were not falsifiable, when all along you thought they were.
2. Conflating *not falsified* with *unfalsifiable*
3. Claiming to have falsified the HadCM3 model based on a statement in the NOAA 2008 Climate Assessment, without demonstrating that the criteria specified in the paper had actually been met.
4. Post Hoc misquoting of the paper AGAIN to extend the scope of what might be falsified
Your entire platform rests on the science not being falsifiable, yet all along, you thought it was. You were lying from the start. You said that NOAA 2008 includes a statement on falsification, in contradiction to your central platform. You didn't demonstrate any actual falsification of the models referenced in the paper, but now claim that the NOAA 2008 falsifies not only the models, but the underlying theory. To cover your arse when called on the latter specifically, you modified your citation of yourself to replace the reference to the model with a reference to the underlying theory. You lied on top of your lie. To sum up:
Falsifiabilty
You claimed that the models and the theory were not falsifiable, when all along you thought they were. You lied, your entire platform is a lie and a fraud.
Actually Falsified?
You initially claimed that the NOAA 2008 might 'be falsified'. You didn't demonstrate any actual falsification. You then claimed *it had been falsified*. The paper is referring to the HadCM3 climate model (Gordon et al. 2000). You tried to imply that it was referring to the underlying theory. Your attempted falsification failed, but you conflate this with a renewed claim of unfalsifability, whilst your attempted falsification is still out there,dangling like a noose.
Your lies
1. Claiming that the models and science were not falsifiable, when all along you thought they were.
2. Conflating *not falsified* with *unfalsifiable*
3. Claiming to have falsified the HadCM3 model based on a statement in the NOAA 2008 Climate Assessment, without demonstrating that the criteria specified in the paper had actually been met.
4. Post Hoc misquoting of the paper AGAIN to extend the scope of what might be falsified
You claimed that GCMS were unfalsifiable: You were lying. You claimed that AGW as a theory is unfalsifiable. Your were lying.
You claimed that GCMs were falsifiable, but refused to accept the falsification of NOAA 2008, and furthermore, stated that the falsification of *any* model wouldn't refute the CAGW hypothesis. You are lying.
Your entire platform rests on the science not being falsifiable, yet all along, you thought it was. You were lying from the start. You said that NOAA 2008 includes a statement on falsification, in contradiction to your central platform. You didn't demonstrate any actual falsification of the models referenced in the paper, but now claim that the NOAA 2008 falsifies not only the models, but the underlying theory. To cover your arse when called on the latter specifically, you modified your citation of yourself to replace the reference to the model with a reference to the underlying theory. You lied on top of your lie.
To sum up:
Falsifiabilty
You claimed that the models and the theory were not falsifiable, when all along you thought they were. You lied, your entire platform is a lie and a fraud.
Actually Falsified?
You initially claimed that the NOAA 2008 might 'be falsified'. You didn't demonstrate any actual falsification. You then claimed *it had been falsified*. The paper is referring to the HadCM3 climate model (Gordon et al. 2000). You tried to imply that it was referring to the underlying theory. Your attempted falsification failed, but you conflate this with a renewed claim of unfalsifability, whilst your attempted falsification is still out there,dangling like a noose.
Your lies
1. Claiming that the models and science were not falsifiable
2. Conflating not falsified with unfalsifiable
3. Claiming to have falsified the HadCM3 model based on a statement in the NOAA 2008 Climate Assessment, without demonstrating that the criteria specified in the paper had actually been met.
4. Post Hoc misquoting of the paper AGAIN to extend the scope of what might be falsified
Why do you say that the science is not falsifiable when you really think it is?
You: If NOAA 2008 is correct, and the 15 year period observed of statistically insignificant warming has falsified the model, then yes, CAGW is falsifiable.
Me: Previously you said that the models were unfalsifiable. Now you say they are. Explain this discrepancy.
You: {Attempted change of topic}
Me: Previously you said that the models were unfalsifiable. Now you say they are. Explain this discrepancy.
You: If NOAA 2008 is correct, and the 15 year period observed of statistically insignificant warming has falsified the central conceit of CAGW then yes, CAGW is falsifiable.
Me: You are still not addressing the question: which is Previously you said that the models were unfalsifiable. Now you say they are. Explain this discrepancy.
Further, I've caught you lying again. What does the NOAA 2008 climate assessment paper actually say? And bear in mind, I've read the paper.
It's better to measure peoples response against what's objectively true, at least to our best understanding. It's not up to peope to self assess and choose a position they are comfortable with - if I were more comfortable with believing there is no link between lung cancer and smoking, would my position make me less likely to get lung cancer?
We call people who reject the science of climate change deniers, because that is what they are doing - denying. They are in denial, and reject the objective facts for some other reality that provides them with more comfort. This is a known coping mechanism for recievers of terrible news - the term refers to their state of mind, and the reason why they hold the position they do.
We've discussed the shortcomings of climate modeling. We've discussed how it's an evolving process. It's not unfair to think that a great deal of what we read in any single study may turn out to be wildly inaccurate.
There is a vast difference between the levels of uncertainty created by incomplete models (and they are incomplete to some extent), and clinging to notions that have long been dismissed by science.
Now you are asking for my help in constructing a method to prove your assertion. That's ironic.
I'm pointing out just how silly your asserted method for proving completeness is - you're asking someone to prove a negative.
You asserted a negative, and now need to prove it, if you can't, then be it on your own head. Why do you say that the science is not falsifiable when you really think it is?
(1) You haven't successfully falsified the theory of CO2 as a climate driver
(2) You think that the theory of CO2 as a climate driver is falsifiable, in contradiction to you explicit statements. Can you explain this contradiction? If not, why are you lying?
You misunderstand again - if you're going to use NOAA 2008 as an example of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming being falsifiable, then it has been falsified, and we can move on with our lives, and I'll cheerfully admit I was wrong about CAGW being falsifiable.
On the other hand, if you're going to insist that NOAA 2008 isn't falsified, then you should cheerfully admit that you haven't proven me wrong about CAGW being non-falsifiable:)
Why do you say that the science is not falsifiable when you really think it is?
I repeat, if in you mind you think that the NOAA 2008 model has been falsified by an observation yet you claim that it cannot be falsified then you are lying.
Do you deny that the NOAA 2008 claimed that their models would be excluded at the 95% confidence level if a period of 15 years of statistically insignificant warming was observed? Do you deny that we've observed 15 years of statistically insignificant warming?
Are you holding onto the last 5%?
Why do you say that the science is not falsifiable when you really think it is?
Is all unfalsified science, the big bang theory, evolution, Thermodynamics, Quantum Theory, Newtons Laws of Motion - are these theorys automatically NOT science, because they haven't been falsified, despite attempts to do so?
All of those have falsifiable hypothesis statements. CAGW does not. Astrology does not.
Why do you say that the science is not falsifiable when you really think it is?
2. The NOAA model has been falsified not the theories that the underpin the model. Unless you want to claim that the falsification of one model will falsify the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Then you've made my point, and we'll end on that - all of your models are red herrings, the accuracy of which is irrelevant to your central conceit of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. You use them as proof of your premise, but when they are falsified, your premise withstands any damage at all.
Why do you say that the science is not falsifiable when you really think it is?
Our warmist friends would like to believe so, but sadly, the null hypothesis is simply an assertion that two phenomena have no correlation, or more specifically, one does not have causation to the other (even if they are correlated).
But since AGW doesn't require any correlation, your theories are as rubbish as usual. But you wouldn't know the first thing about the ACTUAL SCIENCE (tm) since you have already assured us you are profoundly ignorant, and have amply demonstrated that.
Ignore this hrthompson69 idiot, he probably has never even tried to parse and understand that crime to the English language he keeps on parroting that probably originally comes from some loser parked in a "thinktank" until a political job comes up.
I see we have mutual friend. The original loser in question is most likely Bob Tisdall, given the strong correlation between "climate science can't be falsified!" and simultaneous attempts to falsify it, and the apparent personal vendetta against skepticalscience.com, where Bob goes occasionally for an ass whoopin'.
Anyway, the 'falsifiable hypothesis' schtick is not quite so moronic as the 'null hypothesis' schtick - apparently, the null hypothesis is chosen by whoever calls 'dibs' on it...
This turd he's placed on Karl Popper's grave is a deliberately obfiscated suggestion that there is nothing that will convince a climate scientist to change their mind, which is utter bullshit already proven wrong by the rejection of models over time for more correct models as freshly collected data is matched to predictions from models.
Oh, I know, we arrived at that place early on but I let it drag out for a while. Sometimes a it's good to end early, sometimes it's helpful to take your time, to help a lesson stick, ya know?
Such a search would only find papers mentioning falsifiability - since it's not common practice to do so, the only conceivable way for you to prove your hypothesis: Scientific theories indicating that human CO2 emissions are going to cause catastrophic global warming are not falsifiable would be to examine each paper in detail i.e. Provide details of each experiment and how it avoids falsification.
So, what you're essentially asking for is "please, search all the literature, quote all the literature, and show that it avoids falsification". Much like say, an astrologist might say, "please, search every horoscope, quote every horoscope, and show that it avoids falsification":)
Clever, but not convincing:)
Now you are asking for my help in constructing a method to prove your assertion. That's ironic.
Find a valid method to prove your assertion, use that method, publish your results. Hop to it.
Here you attempt to falsify the underlying theory of CO2 forcing : No they don't. If CO2 is going up, and temperature is going down, then we're not getting any of this magical "further warming". CO2 and global average temperature are decoupled in the ice core record by a significant amount of time, and CO2 is on the *wrong* side to be a significant driver.
And you responded to this inversion of cause and effect by saying that it wasn't a falsification, even if observed:) Again, if your hypothesis can respond to any observation with "yeah, but our central conceit still stands", then it's not falsifiable:)
Stop spinning like a dervish, your sleight of hand is obvious to all. Your attempt at falsification was incorrect. This tells us two things:
(1) You haven't successfully falsified the theory of CO2 as a climate driver
(2) You think that the theory of CO2 as a climate driver is falsifiable, in contradiction to you explicit statements. Can you explain this contradiction? If not, why are you lying?
Here you attempt to falsify a specific climate model: NOAA 2008 paper identified a clear falsification (15 years of no statistically significant warming)
And again, if your trusted authorities *specify* a falsification, and then *observe* it, but still insist they haven't been falsified, doesn't it mean that they didn't start off with a falsifiable hypothesis, and they were just lying when they said they'd accept some specific observation as a falsification?
I repeat, if in you mind you think that the NOAA 2008 model has been falsified by an observation yet you claim that it cannot be falsified then you are lying. You really think it CAN be falsified. Explain this discrepancy.
What don't you get about that?
I don't get your constant attempts to change the topic and thus avoid the question.
I haven't drawn any conclusions about that actual state of the NOAA model with respect to falsification: except that if it has been falsified, or if you have attempted to falsify it (unsuccessfully), or if you accept as credible attempts to falsify it, you are effectively lying when you say that the model can't be falsified.
Okay, so to recap, if catastrophic anthropogenic global warming has been falsified (i.e., NOAA models have failed their test, an therefore we can now consider the entire central conceit of human CO2 emissions driving catastrophic climate change as void), and you cheerfully accept that, then I'm happy to be proven wrong that CAGW is non-falsifiable.
On the other hand, if you continue to insist that the central conceit of CAGW is still true, no matter what the NOAA paper said about observations that would refute their central conceit, then you can't expect me to give up my assertion that CAGW is non-falsif
My dear fellow, you've quite surprised me! I admit I would not have thought that possible. My congratulations.
So you assert (without proof). The time has now come for you to provide proof for your assertion: Scientific theories indicating that the current warming event is in part due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are all unfalsifiable.
Provide details of each experiment and how it avoids falsification.
Scientific theories indicating that human CO2 emissions are going to cause catastrophic global warming all fail the required test of falsifiability.
Since this is the science game, my hypothesis requires falsifiability - and voila! It has it! All we need to do is find a *single* instance of a peer reviewed paper that contains a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, and BAM, we've got our falsification.
So how would we go about finding this falsification? Well, I've searched the literature - nothing in the first 300 hits here have any such falsifiable hypothesis statement - http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=catastrophic+anthropogenic+global+warming+falsifiability&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5 [google.com]
Good try, but unfortunately your methodology is fatally flawed. Such a search would only find papers mentioning falsifiability - since it's not common practice to do so, the only conceivable way for you to prove your hypothesis: Scientific theories indicating that human CO2 emissions are going to cause catastrophic global warming are not falsifiable would be to examine each paper in detail i.e. Provide details of each experiment and how it avoids falsification.
Oh, and inadvertently you missed the second part:
Also, provide the following with respect to your assertion that climate scientists are lying:
1. By what mechanism are these scientists not in conspiracy (your assertion) but able to achieve the same fraudulent results?
2. How was the system of peer review cheated, if not by conspiracy?
3. What percentage of scientists are engaged in lying? All climate scientists? All chemists? All physicists?
4. When did the non-conspiracy coincidental lying commence? What triggered it?
In our previous conversation you admitted that the science of AGW was falsifiable
I did no such thing. You've clearly misinterpreted something terribly, again.
Cite, or it didn't happen.
Certainly:
Here you attempt to falsify the underlying theory of CO2 forcing:
No they don't. If CO2 is going up, and temperature is going down, then we're not getting any of this magical "further warming". CO2 and global average temperature are decoupled in the ice core record by a significant amount of time, and CO2 is on the *wrong* side to be a significant driver.
Here you attempt to falsify a specific climate model: NOAA 2008 paper identified a clear falsification (15 years of no statistically significant warming)
In either case, you cannot both attempt to falsify the theory AND advocate that it is not falsifiable.
Furthermore, as you've already illustrated, despite NOAA 2008 claiming it would be falsified if there were 15 years of no statistically significant warming, the warmists (you included), simply discard inconvenient data:) If you won't accept a previously stated observation as a falsification, then *obviously* you're holding onto a non-falsifiable hypothesis, aren't you?:)
I haven't drawn any conclusions about that actual state of the NOAA model with respect to falsification: except that if it has been falsified, or if you have attempted to falsify it (unsuccessfully), or if you accept as credi
First you said it was mocking, now you say you are "counter-trolling".
You can consider them synonyms
Are you expecting that such rhetorical games will be effective - given that I don't care what you think? There isn't any need, nor motivation to persuade anyone. Denialists can think what they like. What they cannot do, is say what they like. If you are tempted to post denialist lies, misinformation and scaremongering, then you will be called on it. So get used to it.
How exactly will you win the hearts and minds of scientists over to your theory by trolling? Did the death threats and emails threatening to rape their children convince them to join the denialist cause?
There again, you go and start lying and feeding misinformation - the warmist "scientists" are nothing of the sort, because they can't even fulfill the most basic requirements of the scientific method - falsifiability.
So you assert (without proof). The time has now come for you to provide proof for your assertion: Scientific theories indicating that the current warming event is in part due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are all unfalsifiable.
Provide details of each experiment and how it avoids falsification.
Also, provide the following with respect to your assertion that climate scientists are lying:
1. By what mechanism are these scientists not in conspiracy (your assertion) but able to achieve the same fraudulent results?
2. How was the system of peer review cheated, if not by conspiracy?
3. What percentage of scientists are engaged in lying? All climate scientists? All chemists? All physicists?
4. When did the non-conspiracy coincidental lying commence? What triggered it?
I did. You claim here that your memory, has in its depths, a citation of a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming:
"[me]So you assert (without proof). And unfortunately for you, I do happen to possess a good memory"
[YOU] The problem? The way we can tell astrology and catastrophic anthropogenic global warming aren't *really* science? Neither of them has a falsifiable hypothesis.
[ME] So you assert (without proof). And unfortunately for you, I do happen to possess a good memory. Which brings us back to the lying. Should I believe that you have forgotten our previous conversation, or merely that you are lying?
In our previous conversation you admitted that the science of AGW was falsifiable, in 2 parts, firstly, the underlying principles (CO2 as a greenhouse gas) and later, that models themselves were falsifiable. So your citation directly contradicts what you claim.
So: Why did you not provide the citation, when called on it? If you are unable to do so, then say "I'm unable to provide a citation", otherwise, provide a citation in which I made the assertion that falsifiable hypothesis statements for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming exist
Are you going to assert that you meant something entirely different when you said you "possess a good memory"?
Certainly - why wouldn't I exploit your mistake?
You can clear all this up - do you believe there exists a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming?
There's no reason to think that the relevant hypotheses do NOT exist.
Does trolling substitute for being able to provide citations, in your mind?
How exactly will you win the hearts and minds of scientists over to your theory by trolling? Did the death threats and emails threatening to rape their children convince them to join the denialist cause?
Call it "counter-trolling":)
Are you unsure what it is? First you said it was mocking, now you say you are "counter-trolling".
Are you expecting that such rhetorical games will be effective - given that I don't care what you think? There isn't any need, nor motivation to persuade anyone. Denialists can think what they like. What they cannot do, is say what they like. If you are tempted to post denialist lies, misinformation and scaremongering, then you will be called on it. So get used to it.
How exactly will you win the hearts and minds of scientists over to your theory by trolling? Did the death threats and emails threatening to rape their children convince them to join the denialist cause?
Here's a perfect example of your lies and misinformation - the "scientists" you speak of are nothing of the sort, since they haven't even fulfilled the most basic requirement of science - falsifiability. Consider yourself called on it:)
Yes, of course, it's all a vast conspiracy by scientists to cover up the truth. Why is it that when you drill down enough, every denialist claim boils down to a vast conspiracy theory?
So: Provide a citation in which I made the assertion that falsifiable hypothesis statements for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming exist
[no answer]
Why did you not provide the citation, when called on it? If you are unable to do so, then say "I'm unable to provide a citation", otherwise, provide a citation in which I made the assertion that falsifiable hypothesis statements for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming exist
Your continual inability to quote said falsifiable hypothesis seems like pretty good proof at this point
So let's go over this again:
1. You made the assertion: The way we can tell astrology and catastrophic anthropogenic global warming aren't *really* science? Neither of them has a falsifiable hypothesis. The burden of proof rests with you. Are you unable to provide proof of your assertion?
2. You voluntarily entered into this conversation knowing that I would make no effort to convince you [me] There isn't any need, nor motivation to persuade anyone. Denialists can think what they like. What they cannot do, is say what they like. If you are tempted to post denialist lies, misinformation and scaremongering, then you will be called on it. So get used to it..
What part of you have provided me with no compelling reason to respond to your assertion do you not understand?
Does trolling substitute for being able to provide citations, in your mind?
How exactly will you win the hearts and minds of scientists over to your theory by trolling? Did the death threats and emails threatening to rape their children convince them to join the denialist cause?
your assertions that falsifiable hypothesis statements for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming exist
Provide a citation in which I made that assertion.
"I'm not your helper. I feel no compulsion to look up scientific papers on your behalf. Your constant stream of baseless assertions certainly don't compel me to do anything"
[you]The problem? The way we can tell astrology and catastrophic anthropogenic global warming aren't *really* science? Neither of them has a falsifiable hypothesis.
[me]So you assert (without proof). And unfortunately for you, I do happen to possess a good memory
So: Provide a citation in which I made the assertion that falsifiable hypothesis statements for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming exist
The objective fact of climate change is that it has always happened, and that there is no necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming aka "climate change".
False equivalence fallacy - your assertions are not the equivalent of verifiable, repeatable and peer reviewed science
False equivalence fallacy - your assertions that falsifiable hypothesis statements for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming exist are not the equivalent of an *actual* *quoted* falsifiable hypothesis statement.
If you post warmist lies and misinformation, you will be called on it, and thusly, here I am:)
My bet is that yet again, you'll blithely assert that showing an example of a falsifiable hypothesis statement is not your responsibility, despite your faith that they exist somewhere out there:) Your inability to provide such a quote is further consistent evidence of your warmist lies and misinformation:)
So at this point your ability to reply has shrunk down to merely parroting me, like a teenage girl screaming lyrics at a rock concert. You aren't a rock star:-)
Probably this new rhetorical tactic arises because you perceive it to be a position of safety. I don't know for sure, I'm not a pyschologist. However it is a mistake on you part.
False equivalence fallacy - your assertions that falsifiable hypothesis statements for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming exist are not the equivalent of an *actual* *quoted* falsifiable hypothesis statement
Provide a citation in which I made that assertion.
If you post warmist lies and misinformation, you will be called on it, and thusly, here I am
False equivalence fallacy - your assertions are not the equivalent of verifiable, repeatable and peer reviewed science. Get back to me when you have an argument that's worth my time refuting. And remember what I said at the beginning of this conversation:
There isn't any need, nor motivation to persuade anyone. Denialists can think what they like. What they cannot do, is say what they like. If you are tempted to post denialist lies, misinformation and scaremongering, then you will be called on it. So get used to it.
Since you seem confused about the role you and I respectively play in this conversation.
1. It's not my job to persuade you, and hence, I haven't attempted to do that
2. You can think what you like, there is no harm in your lone stance, except to your own reputation
3. If you post denialist lies and misinformation you will be called on it.
If you mistook this conversation for another, that is your concern.
I take it from that reply that you are now ready to accept the you are required to provide evidence for your assertions, we are making progress now.
Perhaps you've heard of "proving a negative"?:) Yes, we've got a large pdf here of every single instance of climate science, and I can provide it to you, you can read through it, and thereby verify that all climate science is unfalsifiable:)/sarc
Really? Look, all you have to do is show a *single* instance of a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. And you still, after so many comments, haven't been able to quote a *single* one. Is it because you're unable to? Simply unwilling to?
Nice try, but not quite there. You at least understand now that if you want to refute science, you first need to read it and understand it. I'm not your helper. I feel no compulsion to look up scientific papers on your behalf. Your constant stream of baseless assertions certainly don't compel me to do anything. Do assertions of fairies in the garden compel anyone to respond to those assertions? First show me that your assertions have some basis in reality, and then we can get down to the detail.
As for the rest of your reply, let me just remind you that you are welcome to indulge in false equivalence, burden of proof fallacies and other rhetorical trickery. I can refute you by pointing out your fallacy. Alternatively, you could focus on the topic at hand, and provide some foundation for taking your assertion of scientific expertise seriously. In the latter case I might NOT be able to refute you. Who knows?
By all means, continue to engage in your false equivalence fallacy, I'll treat with the same respect as the burden proof fallacy that preceded it. And at the end of this conversation you'll still be a guy, half crazed, shouting in the face of slightly bemused scientists as they go about their business, completely ignoring your baseless assertions about their findings.
Unless you can actually give us some reason to accept your assertion(s) they are simply fairy story. By your assertions I mean, your assertion that the current climate change event is natural without any observable cause, and the other (slightly related) assertion that all climate science is unfalsifiable. Nobody needs to disprove these assertions, any more than an assertion of fairies at the bottom of the garden needs to be disproved by biologists.
So you accept my debunking of your most sacred "null hypothesis". Excellent. We look forward to your attempts to falsify the science, from your great store of knowledge of climatology.
Far from it - you're either willfully misunderstanding the null hypothesis of climate change, or conflating it with your secondary null hypothesis "we must accept all articles that get past peer review as truth" (as if simply getting an article peer reviewed or published makes it the null hypothesis...how cute!).
There's no need for me to provide any falsifiable hypothesis - these have already been provided by climate science.
You're lying. Prove me wrong by quoting the falsifiable hypothesis you think "climate science" has provided.
Very well then. If you don't accept your previously accepted position re: usage of the hypothesis, we'll continue to discuss that point until you do.
Nobody who has any knowledge of science will abandon scientific principle, the scientific method, and peer reviewed and falsifiable findings on the basis of an assertion by a guy on the internet. This is the position of a 100% of scientists, including contrarian climate scientists, including your hero, Roy Spencer. On the one side, everybody who knows anything about science, on the other, you. On the one side, the scientific method. On the other, your assertion (which you have labelled your "null hypothesis"). Are you Pharaoh, a godking, that you might pronounce a new reality for us to accept? Or are you just a lone, delusional guy?
It's YOUR hypothesis. We (the human race) aren't going to ignore 150 years of scientific research, and that research will not be set aside so that you'll have a place that you are comfortable arguing from. If you want to assert that that science is wrong, you prove it is wrong. OUR default starting point (what you would incorrectly called the "null hypothesis") is that peer reviewed science is accepted unless an experiment or observation proves otherwise.
And exactly how do you prove a non-falsifiable hypothesis wrong?:)
That's like asking you to win a game of "heads I win, tails you lose":)
If you want to argue something scientific, you are required to have a falsifiable hypothesis statement. Our default starting point is that scientific papers that are peer reviewed do not necessarily contain falsifiable hypotheses.
You are more than welcome to falsify my hypothesis by quoting from any peer reviewed paper you wish:)
So you accept my debunking of your most sacred "null hypothesis". Excellent. We look forward to your attempts to falsify the science, from your great store of knowledge of climatology.
There's no need for me to provide any falsifiable hypothesis - these have already been provided by climate science. Begin your falsification when ready.
When you've satisfied me on one particular point, we'll move onto the next. If this conversation is cut short because the topic gets old on./, we'll pick up again the next time, assuming, (as I've done in this conversation) that conclusions we've reached in previous discussions are true.
Sure they are. You're confused about the line of argument which refutes your beliefs, and I'm explaining it to you. Your claims of certainty (by proxy at that), are unfounded because you simply haven't started the scientific method with a falsifiable hypothesis statement. Demanding that I provide my own personal alternative falsifiable hypothesis statement is a red-herring - you're not in competition with me, you're in competition with the null hypothesis.
This is the conclusion that we previously reached on this point:
It's YOUR hypothesis. We (the human race) aren't going to ignore 150 years of scientific research, and that research will not be set aside so that you'll have a place that you are comfortable arguing from. If you want to assert that that science is wrong, you prove it is wrong. OUR default starting point (what you would incorrectly called the "null hypothesis") is that peer reviewed science is accepted unless an experiment or observation proves otherwise.
"I refuse to align them with a church or religious denomination"
How quaint. Are you suggesting that delusional theists have moral superiority over rational humanists?
The natural reading of this statement is that WBC should not be aligned with churches in the general sense because their fundamental principles are not aligned to that of other churches. Which is perfectly rational, because even the least rational people (the WBC) in this equation say that this is true.
With respect to: Are you suggesting that delusional theists have moral superiority over rational humanists? theists can be rational and humanist, and atheists can be irrational and anti-humanist. Humans are a mixed bunch, we should always exercise caution in labelling someone the "other" because of some arbitrary difference, like skin colour, sexual orientation or religious belief.
Humanism doesn't have any correlation with a particular religious belief, and neither does rationality.
I could not help but notice that your replies have descended into pure trolling. For example:
You aren't in a position to speak of what others do and do not know. But I accept you have the authority to speak to your own ignorance - you are ignorant. Point taken. Therefore your assertion that anthropogenic CO2 will have no effect on climate has no credence, and so we can discard it. I'd be better off just guessing what the effect is - luckily I do not have to resort to that, owing to the raft of observations, experiments, and models done and built by scientists.
So again, the argument from authority:) You didn't even bother to ask for any sort of falsifiable hypothesis, cherry picked the authorities you'd believe, and blithely assert that magically, they are able to assert knowledge without any sort of falsifiability.
And this:
Anyway, you can just answer the question: So you agree that climate models can be falsified?
You haven't shown me one yet:)
These are simply not even addressing the topic at hand.
Whilst trolling is an interesting art form in and of itself, it is unlikely to impress me into accepting that a whole branch of science has been or could be falsified by you. I've warned you before about this behaviour, it does you no credit. Troll on your own time.
.
Let's summarise our conclusions so far:
1. You accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and therefore that the quantity of natural CO2 in the atmosphere plays a role in warming the atmosphere. However, you are absolutely certain that human emissions will not warm the atmosphere any further. You either cannot see that discrepancy, or you do and refuse to address it.
2. You profess yourself to have no knowledge of climate science, to the extent that you cannot (or will not) predict or model the scenario where there is twice as much atmospheric CO2 as there was in 1850. Nevertheless you insist that all modelling must be wrong, without explanation. You claim that all climate models are not falsifiable, and your evidence for this is a blog in which there is superimposed two graphs of unknown provenance, both showing demonstrable CO2 forcing toward the latter half of the 20th century, and this in your mind proves some kind of fraud.
3. You say there was no conspiracy involved in this fraud, but cannot explain how the previous published results could have been unpublished. You blame it all on one man (James Hansen) without explaining why he would have have modified a graph that shows a significant amount of CO2 forcing to another which shows essentially the same amount. You can't explain the link between this alleged fraud and your original assertion that the models are not falsifiable.
4. Having claimed that climate models are not falsifiable, you then attempted to falsify one. You aren't prepared to comment on this discrepancy.
5. You claim expert knowledge of the scientific method, but cannot justify any of your positions by referencing science. Your oblique references to scientific concepts focus on a fallacious use of "the" null hypothesis, an assertion for which you have been previously corrected, again and again and again.
6. You claim a natural forcing for the current warming event, but cannot explain what is doing the forcing. You claim that justifying this assertion is not your responsibility.
7. You claim that natural climate forcings disprove the possibility of CO2 forcing because CO2 has a positive feedback relationship with both itself and other forcing mechanisms. You justify that by using ice cores which in fact, prove the feedback is approximately 90% (http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm). You don't want to discuss this either.
So you agree that someone (like yourself) who, rather than saying “I don’t really know the effect that adding CO2 will have, other than a general rise in temperature” says: “the rise in temperature will be neglible” needs to have some actual science to back up those predictions.
You're misstating my assertion. I'm saying that *nobody* really knows the effect of adding CO2 into the atmosphere, beyond a non-zero increase in temperature. That includes you:)
You aren't in a position to speak of what others do and do not know. But I accept you have the authority to speak to your own ignorance - you are ignorant. Point taken. Therefore your assertion that anthropogenic CO2 will have no effect on climate has no credence, and so we can discard it. I'd be better off just guessing what the effect is - luckily I do not have to resort to that, owing to the raft of observations, experiments, and models done and built by scientists.
Data on the terrain and the accelerator are readily available. On average, my car is going to accelerate despite periods of deceleration.
Ah, the car analogy:) Pray tell, what data do you have on the "terrain" of cloud cover and albedo in the pre-industrial age? You're asserting knowledge where you have none:)
Have the effects of cloud cover and albedo changed post the industrial age? What happened previously, did angels blow out clouds from there arses?
Are you being clownish on purpose?
So you agree that climate models can be falsified?
Moving the pea under the thimble again? Say you have two dozen climate models, all with the same central conceit - human CO2 emissions overwhelm natural climate variation. Do all two dozen have to miss predictions by say, 5%, in order for the central conceit to be falsified? Just one of them? Just the model mean?
Show me the *one* model that you believe represents your central conceit, which if in error regarding any predictions, will falsify your central conceit - none of this "bet on every space on the craps table" nonsense.
Well I guess that argument made sense in your head, since you went to the trouble of typing it out. Something got lost in translation! Anyway, you can just answer the question: So you agree that climate models can be falsified?
I'll assume yes.
Certainly: "natural climate change has continued even through the birth of humanity and the industrial age"
And exactly where in that statement you're quoting from me do I talk about CO2 doubling and its effect on global average temperature?
No bother - I'll accept your belated admission that you know nothing of those effects.
Which is, of course, in direct contradiction to your earlier admission that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
What? CO2 can be a greenhouse gas, and not drive global average temperature changes.
How do you know? You profess to be ignorant of the matter.
In fact, the ice core record shows quite nicely that CO2 changes *after* temperature.
Are you hoping that just by simply posting this enough, it will somehow come to mean something other than what logic and observation tells us it means? ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm) If I wanted to listen to liturgy, I would find a church.
Heck H2O is a greenhouse gas - are you going to assert that humidity drives global average temperature?
You've made quite enough assertions for us to be going on with.
You yourself predicted climate change on the basis of Tyndalls work.
Slashdot Mirror
Your entire platform rests on the science not being falsifiable, yet all along, you thought it was. You were lying from the start. You said that NOAA 2008 includes a statement on falsification, in contradiction to your central platform. You didn't demonstrate any actual falsification of the models referenced in the paper, but now claim that the NOAA 2008 falsifies not only the models, but the underlying theory. To cover your arse when called on the latter specifically, you modified your citation of yourself to replace the reference to the model with a reference to the underlying theory. You lied on top of your lie. To sum up:
Falsifiabilty
You claimed that the models and the theory were not falsifiable, when all along you thought they were. You lied, your entire platform is a lie and a fraud.
Actually Falsified?
You initially claimed that the NOAA 2008 might 'be falsified'. You didn't demonstrate any actual falsification. You then claimed *it had been falsified*. The paper is referring to the HadCM3 climate model (Gordon et al. 2000). You tried to imply that it was referring to the underlying theory. Your attempted falsification failed, but you conflate this with a renewed claim of unfalsifability, whilst your attempted falsification is still out there,dangling like a noose.
Your lies
1. Claiming that the models and science were not falsifiable, when all along you thought they were.
2. Conflating *not falsified* with *unfalsifiable*
3. Claiming to have falsified the HadCM3 model based on a statement in the NOAA 2008 Climate Assessment, without demonstrating that the criteria specified in the paper had actually been met.
4. Post Hoc misquoting of the paper AGAIN to extend the scope of what might be falsified
Falsifiabilty
You claimed that the models and the theory were not falsifiable, when all along you thought they were. You lied, your entire platform is a lie and a fraud.
Actually Falsified?
You initially claimed that the NOAA 2008 might 'be falsified'. You didn't demonstrate any actual falsification. You then claimed *it had been falsified*. The paper is referring to the HadCM3 climate model (Gordon et al. 2000). You tried to imply that it was referring to the underlying theory. Your attempted falsification failed, but you conflate this with a renewed claim of unfalsifability, whilst your attempted falsification is still out there,dangling like a noose.
Your lies
1. Claiming that the models and science were not falsifiable, when all along you thought they were.
2. Conflating *not falsified* with *unfalsifiable*
3. Claiming to have falsified the HadCM3 model based on a statement in the NOAA 2008 Climate Assessment, without demonstrating that the criteria specified in the paper had actually been met.
4. Post Hoc misquoting of the paper AGAIN to extend the scope of what might be falsified
You claimed that GCMS were unfalsifiable: You were lying. You claimed that AGW as a theory is unfalsifiable. Your were lying.
You claimed that GCMs were falsifiable, but refused to accept the falsification of NOAA 2008, and furthermore, stated that the falsification of *any* model wouldn't refute the CAGW hypothesis. You are lying.
Your entire platform rests on the science not being falsifiable, yet all along, you thought it was. You were lying from the start. You said that NOAA 2008 includes a statement on falsification, in contradiction to your central platform. You didn't demonstrate any actual falsification of the models referenced in the paper, but now claim that the NOAA 2008 falsifies not only the models, but the underlying theory. To cover your arse when called on the latter specifically, you modified your citation of yourself to replace the reference to the model with a reference to the underlying theory. You lied on top of your lie. To sum up:
Falsifiabilty
You claimed that the models and the theory were not falsifiable, when all along you thought they were. You lied, your entire platform is a lie and a fraud.
Actually Falsified?
You initially claimed that the NOAA 2008 might 'be falsified'. You didn't demonstrate any actual falsification. You then claimed *it had been falsified*. The paper is referring to the HadCM3 climate model (Gordon et al. 2000). You tried to imply that it was referring to the underlying theory. Your attempted falsification failed, but you conflate this with a renewed claim of unfalsifability, whilst your attempted falsification is still out there,dangling like a noose.
Your lies
1. Claiming that the models and science were not falsifiable
2. Conflating not falsified with unfalsifiable
3. Claiming to have falsified the HadCM3 model based on a statement in the NOAA 2008 Climate Assessment, without demonstrating that the criteria specified in the paper had actually been met.
4. Post Hoc misquoting of the paper AGAIN to extend the scope of what might be falsified
Why do you say that the science is not falsifiable when you really think it is?
You: If NOAA 2008 is correct, and the 15 year period observed of statistically insignificant warming has falsified the model, then yes, CAGW is falsifiable.
Me: Previously you said that the models were unfalsifiable. Now you say they are. Explain this discrepancy.
You: {Attempted change of topic}
Me: Previously you said that the models were unfalsifiable. Now you say they are. Explain this discrepancy.
You: If NOAA 2008 is correct, and the 15 year period observed of statistically insignificant warming has falsified the central conceit of CAGW then yes, CAGW is falsifiable.
Me: You are still not addressing the question: which is Previously you said that the models were unfalsifiable. Now you say they are. Explain this discrepancy.
Further, I've caught you lying again. What does the NOAA 2008 climate assessment paper actually say? And bear in mind, I've read the paper.
1) it doesn't matter if GCMs are falsified, CAGW remains non-falsifiable;
You claimed that GCMS were unfalsifiable: You were lying. You claimed that AGW as a theory is unfalsifiable. Your were lying.
2) astrology is non-falsifiable;
You claimed that GCMS were unfalsifiable: You were lying. You claimed that AGW as a theory is unfalsifiable. Your were lying.
3) CAGW doesn't even require correlation to be true.
You claimed that GCMS were unfalsifiable: You were lying. You claimed that AGW as a theory is unfalsifiable. Your were lying.
At this point in time you are more likely to obtain the truth by linking to a homeopathy site compared to wattsupwiththat.com.
We call people who reject the science of climate change deniers, because that is what they are doing - denying. They are in denial, and reject the objective facts for some other reality that provides them with more comfort. This is a known coping mechanism for recievers of terrible news - the term refers to their state of mind, and the reason why they hold the position they do.
We've discussed the shortcomings of climate modeling. We've discussed how it's an evolving process. It's not unfair to think that a great deal of what we read in any single study may turn out to be wildly inaccurate.
There is a vast difference between the levels of uncertainty created by incomplete models (and they are incomplete to some extent), and clinging to notions that have long been dismissed by science.
Now you are asking for my help in constructing a method to prove your assertion. That's ironic.
I'm pointing out just how silly your asserted method for proving completeness is - you're asking someone to prove a negative.
You asserted a negative, and now need to prove it, if you can't, then be it on your own head. Why do you say that the science is not falsifiable when you really think it is?
(1) You haven't successfully falsified the theory of CO2 as a climate driver (2) You think that the theory of CO2 as a climate driver is falsifiable, in contradiction to you explicit statements. Can you explain this contradiction? If not, why are you lying?
You misunderstand again - if you're going to use NOAA 2008 as an example of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming being falsifiable, then it has been falsified, and we can move on with our lives, and I'll cheerfully admit I was wrong about CAGW being falsifiable. On the other hand, if you're going to insist that NOAA 2008 isn't falsified, then you should cheerfully admit that you haven't proven me wrong about CAGW being non-falsifiable :)
Why do you say that the science is not falsifiable when you really think it is?
I repeat, if in you mind you think that the NOAA 2008 model has been falsified by an observation yet you claim that it cannot be falsified then you are lying.
Do you deny that the NOAA 2008 claimed that their models would be excluded at the 95% confidence level if a period of 15 years of statistically insignificant warming was observed? Do you deny that we've observed 15 years of statistically insignificant warming? Are you holding onto the last 5%?
Why do you say that the science is not falsifiable when you really think it is?
Is all unfalsified science, the big bang theory, evolution, Thermodynamics, Quantum Theory, Newtons Laws of Motion - are these theorys automatically NOT science, because they haven't been falsified, despite attempts to do so?
All of those have falsifiable hypothesis statements. CAGW does not. Astrology does not.
Why do you say that the science is not falsifiable when you really think it is?
2. The NOAA model has been falsified not the theories that the underpin the model. Unless you want to claim that the falsification of one model will falsify the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Then you've made my point, and we'll end on that - all of your models are red herrings, the accuracy of which is irrelevant to your central conceit of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. You use them as proof of your premise, but when they are falsified, your premise withstands any damage at all.
Why do you say that the science is not falsifiable when you really think it is?
Our warmist friends would like to believe so, but sadly, the null hypothesis is simply an assertion that two phenomena have no correlation, or more specifically, one does not have causation to the other (even if they are correlated).
But since AGW doesn't require any correlation, your theories are as rubbish as usual. But you wouldn't know the first thing about the ACTUAL SCIENCE (tm) since you have already assured us you are profoundly ignorant, and have amply demonstrated that.
Ignore this hrthompson69 idiot, he probably has never even tried to parse and understand that crime to the English language he keeps on parroting that probably originally comes from some loser parked in a "thinktank" until a political job comes up.
I see we have mutual friend. The original loser in question is most likely Bob Tisdall, given the strong correlation between "climate science can't be falsified!" and simultaneous attempts to falsify it, and the apparent personal vendetta against skepticalscience.com, where Bob goes occasionally for an ass whoopin'.
Anyway, the 'falsifiable hypothesis' schtick is not quite so moronic as the 'null hypothesis' schtick - apparently, the null hypothesis is chosen by whoever calls 'dibs' on it...
This turd he's placed on Karl Popper's grave is a deliberately obfiscated suggestion that there is nothing that will convince a climate scientist to change their mind, which is utter bullshit already proven wrong by the rejection of models over time for more correct models as freshly collected data is matched to predictions from models.
Oh, I know, we arrived at that place early on but I let it drag out for a while. Sometimes a it's good to end early, sometimes it's helpful to take your time, to help a lesson stick, ya know?
Such a search would only find papers mentioning falsifiability - since it's not common practice to do so, the only conceivable way for you to prove your hypothesis: Scientific theories indicating that human CO2 emissions are going to cause catastrophic global warming are not falsifiable would be to examine each paper in detail i.e. Provide details of each experiment and how it avoids falsification.
So, what you're essentially asking for is "please, search all the literature, quote all the literature, and show that it avoids falsification". Much like say, an astrologist might say, "please, search every horoscope, quote every horoscope, and show that it avoids falsification" :)
Clever, but not convincing :)
Now you are asking for my help in constructing a method to prove your assertion. That's ironic.
Find a valid method to prove your assertion, use that method, publish your results. Hop to it.
Here you attempt to falsify the underlying theory of CO2 forcing : No they don't. If CO2 is going up, and temperature is going down, then we're not getting any of this magical "further warming". CO2 and global average temperature are decoupled in the ice core record by a significant amount of time, and CO2 is on the *wrong* side to be a significant driver.
And you responded to this inversion of cause and effect by saying that it wasn't a falsification, even if observed :) Again, if your hypothesis can respond to any observation with "yeah, but our central conceit still stands", then it's not falsifiable :)
Stop spinning like a dervish, your sleight of hand is obvious to all. Your attempt at falsification was incorrect. This tells us two things:
(1) You haven't successfully falsified the theory of CO2 as a climate driver
(2) You think that the theory of CO2 as a climate driver is falsifiable, in contradiction to you explicit statements. Can you explain this contradiction? If not, why are you lying?
Here you attempt to falsify a specific climate model: NOAA 2008 paper identified a clear falsification (15 years of no statistically significant warming)
And again, if your trusted authorities *specify* a falsification, and then *observe* it, but still insist they haven't been falsified, doesn't it mean that they didn't start off with a falsifiable hypothesis, and they were just lying when they said they'd accept some specific observation as a falsification?
I repeat, if in you mind you think that the NOAA 2008 model has been falsified by an observation yet you claim that it cannot be falsified then you are lying. You really think it CAN be falsified. Explain this discrepancy.
What don't you get about that?
I don't get your constant attempts to change the topic and thus avoid the question.
I haven't drawn any conclusions about that actual state of the NOAA model with respect to falsification: except that if it has been falsified, or if you have attempted to falsify it (unsuccessfully), or if you accept as credible attempts to falsify it, you are effectively lying when you say that the model can't be falsified.
Okay, so to recap, if catastrophic anthropogenic global warming has been falsified (i.e., NOAA models have failed their test, an therefore we can now consider the entire central conceit of human CO2 emissions driving catastrophic climate change as void), and you cheerfully accept that, then I'm happy to be proven wrong that CAGW is non-falsifiable.
On the other hand, if you continue to insist that the central conceit of CAGW is still true, no matter what the NOAA paper said about observations that would refute their central conceit, then you can't expect me to give up my assertion that CAGW is non-falsif
So you assert (without proof). The time has now come for you to provide proof for your assertion: Scientific theories indicating that the current warming event is in part due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are all unfalsifiable. Provide details of each experiment and how it avoids falsification.
Scientific theories indicating that human CO2 emissions are going to cause catastrophic global warming all fail the required test of falsifiability. Since this is the science game, my hypothesis requires falsifiability - and voila! It has it! All we need to do is find a *single* instance of a peer reviewed paper that contains a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, and BAM, we've got our falsification. So how would we go about finding this falsification? Well, I've searched the literature - nothing in the first 300 hits here have any such falsifiable hypothesis statement - http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=catastrophic+anthropogenic+global+warming+falsifiability&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5 [google.com]
Good try, but unfortunately your methodology is fatally flawed. Such a search would only find papers mentioning falsifiability - since it's not common practice to do so, the only conceivable way for you to prove your hypothesis: Scientific theories indicating that human CO2 emissions are going to cause catastrophic global warming are not falsifiable would be to examine each paper in detail i.e. Provide details of each experiment and how it avoids falsification. Oh, and inadvertently you missed the second part:
Also, provide the following with respect to your assertion that climate scientists are lying:
1. By what mechanism are these scientists not in conspiracy (your assertion) but able to achieve the same fraudulent results?
2. How was the system of peer review cheated, if not by conspiracy?
3. What percentage of scientists are engaged in lying? All climate scientists? All chemists? All physicists?
4. When did the non-conspiracy coincidental lying commence? What triggered it?
In our previous conversation you admitted that the science of AGW was falsifiable
I did no such thing. You've clearly misinterpreted something terribly, again. Cite, or it didn't happen.
Certainly:
Here you attempt to falsify the underlying theory of CO2 forcing :
No they don't. If CO2 is going up, and temperature is going down, then we're not getting any of this magical "further warming". CO2 and global average temperature are decoupled in the ice core record by a significant amount of time, and CO2 is on the *wrong* side to be a significant driver.
Here you attempt to falsify a specific climate model: NOAA 2008 paper identified a clear falsification (15 years of no statistically significant warming)
In either case, you cannot both attempt to falsify the theory AND advocate that it is not falsifiable.
Furthermore, as you've already illustrated, despite NOAA 2008 claiming it would be falsified if there were 15 years of no statistically significant warming, the warmists (you included), simply discard inconvenient data :) If you won't accept a previously stated observation as a falsification, then *obviously* you're holding onto a non-falsifiable hypothesis, aren't you? :)
I haven't drawn any conclusions about that actual state of the NOAA model with respect to falsification: except that if it has been falsified, or if you have attempted to falsify it (unsuccessfully), or if you accept as credi
First you said it was mocking, now you say you are "counter-trolling".
You can consider them synonyms
Are you expecting that such rhetorical games will be effective - given that I don't care what you think? There isn't any need, nor motivation to persuade anyone. Denialists can think what they like. What they cannot do, is say what they like. If you are tempted to post denialist lies, misinformation and scaremongering, then you will be called on it. So get used to it.
How exactly will you win the hearts and minds of scientists over to your theory by trolling? Did the death threats and emails threatening to rape their children convince them to join the denialist cause?
There again, you go and start lying and feeding misinformation - the warmist "scientists" are nothing of the sort, because they can't even fulfill the most basic requirements of the scientific method - falsifiability.
So you assert (without proof). The time has now come for you to provide proof for your assertion: Scientific theories indicating that the current warming event is in part due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are all unfalsifiable.
Provide details of each experiment and how it avoids falsification.
Also, provide the following with respect to your assertion that climate scientists are lying:
1. By what mechanism are these scientists not in conspiracy (your assertion) but able to achieve the same fraudulent results?
2. How was the system of peer review cheated, if not by conspiracy?
3. What percentage of scientists are engaged in lying? All climate scientists? All chemists? All physicists?
4. When did the non-conspiracy coincidental lying commence? What triggered it?
I did. You claim here that your memory, has in its depths, a citation of a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming:
"[me]So you assert (without proof). And unfortunately for you, I do happen to possess a good memory"
Boy did you get that wrong. Embarrassingly wrong.
Here is the quote you are referring to (from http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3303957&cid=42353043)
[YOU] The problem? The way we can tell astrology and catastrophic anthropogenic global warming aren't *really* science? Neither of them has a falsifiable hypothesis.
[ME] So you assert (without proof). And unfortunately for you, I do happen to possess a good memory. Which brings us back to the lying. Should I believe that you have forgotten our previous conversation, or merely that you are lying?
In our previous conversation you admitted that the science of AGW was falsifiable, in 2 parts, firstly, the underlying principles (CO2 as a greenhouse gas) and later, that models themselves were falsifiable. So your citation directly contradicts what you claim.
So: Why did you not provide the citation, when called on it? If you are unable to do so, then say "I'm unable to provide a citation", otherwise, provide a citation in which I made the assertion that falsifiable hypothesis statements for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming exist
Are you going to assert that you meant something entirely different when you said you "possess a good memory"?
Certainly - why wouldn't I exploit your mistake?
You can clear all this up - do you believe there exists a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming?
There's no reason to think that the relevant hypotheses do NOT exist.
Have you seen it?
Irrelevant.
Can you quote it?
Irrelevant.
[I] call it "mocking you"
So you're trolling?
Does trolling substitute for being able to provide citations, in your mind?
How exactly will you win the hearts and minds of scientists over to your theory by trolling? Did the death threats and emails threatening to rape their children convince them to join the denialist cause?
Call it "counter-trolling" :)
Are you unsure what it is? First you said it was mocking, now you say you are "counter-trolling".
Are you expecting that such rhetorical games will be effective - given that I don't care what you think? There isn't any need, nor motivation to persuade anyone. Denialists can think what they like. What they cannot do, is say what they like. If you are tempted to post denialist lies, misinformation and scaremongering, then you will be called on it. So get used to it.
How exactly will you win the hearts and minds of scientists over to your theory by trolling? Did the death threats and emails threatening to rape their children convince them to join the denialist cause?
Here's a perfect example of your lies and misinformation - the "scientists" you speak of are nothing of the sort, since they haven't even fulfilled the most basic requirement of science - falsifiability. Consider yourself called on it :)
Yes, of course, it's all a vast conspiracy by scientists to cover up the truth. Why is it that when you drill down enough, every denialist claim boils down to a vast conspiracy theory?
So: Provide a citation in which I made the assertion that falsifiable hypothesis statements for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming exist
[no answer]
Why did you not provide the citation, when called on it? If you are unable to do so, then say "I'm unable to provide a citation", otherwise, provide a citation in which I made the assertion that falsifiable hypothesis statements for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming exist
Your continual inability to quote said falsifiable hypothesis seems like pretty good proof at this point
So let's go over this again:
1. You made the assertion: The way we can tell astrology and catastrophic anthropogenic global warming aren't *really* science? Neither of them has a falsifiable hypothesis. The burden of proof rests with you. Are you unable to provide proof of your assertion?
2. You voluntarily entered into this conversation knowing that I would make no effort to convince you [me] There isn't any need, nor motivation to persuade anyone. Denialists can think what they like. What they cannot do, is say what they like. If you are tempted to post denialist lies, misinformation and scaremongering, then you will be called on it. So get used to it..
What part of you have provided me with no compelling reason to respond to your assertion do you not understand?
[I] call it "mocking you"
So you're trolling?
Does trolling substitute for being able to provide citations, in your mind?
How exactly will you win the hearts and minds of scientists over to your theory by trolling? Did the death threats and emails threatening to rape their children convince them to join the denialist cause?
your assertions that falsifiable hypothesis statements for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming exist
Provide a citation in which I made that assertion.
"I'm not your helper. I feel no compulsion to look up scientific papers on your behalf. Your constant stream of baseless assertions certainly don't compel me to do anything"
That cite says the exact opposite of what you need to provide. If it helps: here is our conversation (from http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3303957&cid=42249320)
[you]The problem? The way we can tell astrology and catastrophic anthropogenic global warming aren't *really* science? Neither of them has a falsifiable hypothesis.
[me]So you assert (without proof). And unfortunately for you, I do happen to possess a good memory
So: Provide a citation in which I made the assertion that falsifiable hypothesis statements for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming exist
The objective fact of climate change is that it has always happened, and that there is no necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming aka "climate change".
So you assert (without proof).
False equivalence fallacy - your assertions that falsifiable hypothesis statements for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming exist are not the equivalent of an *actual* *quoted* falsifiable hypothesis statement.
If you post warmist lies and misinformation, you will be called on it, and thusly, here I am :)
My bet is that yet again, you'll blithely assert that showing an example of a falsifiable hypothesis statement is not your responsibility, despite your faith that they exist somewhere out there :) Your inability to provide such a quote is further consistent evidence of your warmist lies and misinformation :)
So at this point your ability to reply has shrunk down to merely parroting me, like a teenage girl screaming lyrics at a rock concert. You aren't a rock star :-)
Probably this new rhetorical tactic arises because you perceive it to be a position of safety. I don't know for sure, I'm not a pyschologist. However it is a mistake on you part.
False equivalence fallacy - your assertions that falsifiable hypothesis statements for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming exist are not the equivalent of an *actual* *quoted* falsifiable hypothesis statement
Provide a citation in which I made that assertion.
If you post warmist lies and misinformation, you will be called on it, and thusly, here I am
Cite yourself, describing the terms and conditions of your posting in this thread, prior to my post at http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3303957&cid=42229965 , matching that description.
There isn't any need, nor motivation to persuade anyone. Denialists can think what they like. What they cannot do, is say what they like. If you are tempted to post denialist lies, misinformation and scaremongering, then you will be called on it. So get used to it.
Since you seem confused about the role you and I respectively play in this conversation.
1. It's not my job to persuade you, and hence, I haven't attempted to do that
2. You can think what you like, there is no harm in your lone stance, except to your own reputation
3. If you post denialist lies and misinformation you will be called on it.
If you mistook this conversation for another, that is your concern.
Perhaps you've heard of "proving a negative"? :) Yes, we've got a large pdf here of every single instance of climate science, and I can provide it to you, you can read through it, and thereby verify that all climate science is unfalsifiable :) /sarc
Really? Look, all you have to do is show a *single* instance of a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. And you still, after so many comments, haven't been able to quote a *single* one. Is it because you're unable to? Simply unwilling to?
Nice try, but not quite there. You at least understand now that if you want to refute science, you first need to read it and understand it. I'm not your helper. I feel no compulsion to look up scientific papers on your behalf. Your constant stream of baseless assertions certainly don't compel me to do anything. Do assertions of fairies in the garden compel anyone to respond to those assertions? First show me that your assertions have some basis in reality, and then we can get down to the detail.
As for the rest of your reply, let me just remind you that you are welcome to indulge in false equivalence, burden of proof fallacies and other rhetorical trickery. I can refute you by pointing out your fallacy. Alternatively, you could focus on the topic at hand, and provide some foundation for taking your assertion of scientific expertise seriously. In the latter case I might NOT be able to refute you. Who knows?
Your choice.
Unless you can actually give us some reason to accept your assertion(s) they are simply fairy story. By your assertions I mean, your assertion that the current climate change event is natural without any observable cause, and the other (slightly related) assertion that all climate science is unfalsifiable. Nobody needs to disprove these assertions, any more than an assertion of fairies at the bottom of the garden needs to be disproved by biologists.
So you accept my debunking of your most sacred "null hypothesis". Excellent. We look forward to your attempts to falsify the science, from your great store of knowledge of climatology.
Far from it - you're either willfully misunderstanding the null hypothesis of climate change, or conflating it with your secondary null hypothesis "we must accept all articles that get past peer review as truth" (as if simply getting an article peer reviewed or published makes it the null hypothesis...how cute!).
There's no need for me to provide any falsifiable hypothesis - these have already been provided by climate science.
You're lying. Prove me wrong by quoting the falsifiable hypothesis you think "climate science" has provided.
Very well then. If you don't accept your previously accepted position re: usage of the hypothesis, we'll continue to discuss that point until you do.
Nobody who has any knowledge of science will abandon scientific principle, the scientific method, and peer reviewed and falsifiable findings on the basis of an assertion by a guy on the internet. This is the position of a 100% of scientists, including contrarian climate scientists, including your hero, Roy Spencer. On the one side, everybody who knows anything about science, on the other, you. On the one side, the scientific method. On the other, your assertion (which you have labelled your "null hypothesis"). Are you Pharaoh, a godking, that you might pronounce a new reality for us to accept? Or are you just a lone, delusional guy?
It's YOUR hypothesis. We (the human race) aren't going to ignore 150 years of scientific research, and that research will not be set aside so that you'll have a place that you are comfortable arguing from. If you want to assert that that science is wrong, you prove it is wrong. OUR default starting point (what you would incorrectly called the "null hypothesis") is that peer reviewed science is accepted unless an experiment or observation proves otherwise.
And exactly how do you prove a non-falsifiable hypothesis wrong? :)
That's like asking you to win a game of "heads I win, tails you lose" :)
If you want to argue something scientific, you are required to have a falsifiable hypothesis statement. Our default starting point is that scientific papers that are peer reviewed do not necessarily contain falsifiable hypotheses.
You are more than welcome to falsify my hypothesis by quoting from any peer reviewed paper you wish :)
So you accept my debunking of your most sacred "null hypothesis". Excellent. We look forward to your attempts to falsify the science, from your great store of knowledge of climatology.
There's no need for me to provide any falsifiable hypothesis - these have already been provided by climate science. Begin your falsification when ready.
When you've satisfied me on one particular point, we'll move onto the next. If this conversation is cut short because the topic gets old on ./, we'll pick up again the next time, assuming, (as I've done in this conversation) that conclusions we've reached in previous discussions are true.
Sure they are. You're confused about the line of argument which refutes your beliefs, and I'm explaining it to you. Your claims of certainty (by proxy at that), are unfounded because you simply haven't started the scientific method with a falsifiable hypothesis statement. Demanding that I provide my own personal alternative falsifiable hypothesis statement is a red-herring - you're not in competition with me, you're in competition with the null hypothesis.
This is the conclusion that we previously reached on this point:
It's YOUR hypothesis. We (the human race) aren't going to ignore 150 years of scientific research, and that research will not be set aside so that you'll have a place that you are comfortable arguing from. If you want to assert that that science is wrong, you prove it is wrong. OUR default starting point (what you would incorrectly called the "null hypothesis") is that peer reviewed science is accepted unless an experiment or observation proves otherwise.
"I refuse to align them with a church or religious denomination" How quaint. Are you suggesting that delusional theists have moral superiority over rational humanists?
The natural reading of this statement is that WBC should not be aligned with churches in the general sense because their fundamental principles are not aligned to that of other churches. Which is perfectly rational, because even the least rational people (the WBC) in this equation say that this is true. With respect to: Are you suggesting that delusional theists have moral superiority over rational humanists? theists can be rational and humanist, and atheists can be irrational and anti-humanist. Humans are a mixed bunch, we should always exercise caution in labelling someone the "other" because of some arbitrary difference, like skin colour, sexual orientation or religious belief.
Humanism doesn't have any correlation with a particular religious belief, and neither does rationality.
You aren't in a position to speak of what others do and do not know. But I accept you have the authority to speak to your own ignorance - you are ignorant. Point taken. Therefore your assertion that anthropogenic CO2 will have no effect on climate has no credence, and so we can discard it. I'd be better off just guessing what the effect is - luckily I do not have to resort to that, owing to the raft of observations, experiments, and models done and built by scientists.
So again, the argument from authority :) You didn't even bother to ask for any sort of falsifiable hypothesis, cherry picked the authorities you'd believe, and blithely assert that magically, they are able to assert knowledge without any sort of falsifiability.
And this:
Anyway, you can just answer the question: So you agree that climate models can be falsified?
You haven't shown me one yet :)
These are simply not even addressing the topic at hand.
Whilst trolling is an interesting art form in and of itself, it is unlikely to impress me into accepting that a whole branch of science has been or could be falsified by you. I've warned you before about this behaviour, it does you no credit. Troll on your own time.
. Let's summarise our conclusions so far:
1. You accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and therefore that the quantity of natural CO2 in the atmosphere plays a role in warming the atmosphere. However, you are absolutely certain that human emissions will not warm the atmosphere any further. You either cannot see that discrepancy, or you do and refuse to address it.
2. You profess yourself to have no knowledge of climate science, to the extent that you cannot (or will not) predict or model the scenario where there is twice as much atmospheric CO2 as there was in 1850. Nevertheless you insist that all modelling must be wrong, without explanation. You claim that all climate models are not falsifiable, and your evidence for this is a blog in which there is superimposed two graphs of unknown provenance, both showing demonstrable CO2 forcing toward the latter half of the 20th century, and this in your mind proves some kind of fraud.
3. You say there was no conspiracy involved in this fraud, but cannot explain how the previous published results could have been unpublished. You blame it all on one man (James Hansen) without explaining why he would have have modified a graph that shows a significant amount of CO2 forcing to another which shows essentially the same amount. You can't explain the link between this alleged fraud and your original assertion that the models are not falsifiable.
4. Having claimed that climate models are not falsifiable, you then attempted to falsify one. You aren't prepared to comment on this discrepancy.
5. You claim expert knowledge of the scientific method, but cannot justify any of your positions by referencing science. Your oblique references to scientific concepts focus on a fallacious use of "the" null hypothesis, an assertion for which you have been previously corrected, again and again and again.
6. You claim a natural forcing for the current warming event, but cannot explain what is doing the forcing. You claim that justifying this assertion is not your responsibility.
7. You claim that natural climate forcings disprove the possibility of CO2 forcing because CO2 has a positive feedback relationship with both itself and other forcing mechanisms. You justify that by using ice cores which in fact, prove the feedback is approximately 90% (http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm). You don't want to discuss this either.
Have I missed anything?
So you agree that someone (like yourself) who, rather than saying “I don’t really know the effect that adding CO2 will have, other than a general rise in temperature” says: “the rise in temperature will be neglible” needs to have some actual science to back up those predictions.
You're misstating my assertion. I'm saying that *nobody* really knows the effect of adding CO2 into the atmosphere, beyond a non-zero increase in temperature. That includes you :)
You aren't in a position to speak of what others do and do not know. But I accept you have the authority to speak to your own ignorance - you are ignorant. Point taken. Therefore your assertion that anthropogenic CO2 will have no effect on climate has no credence, and so we can discard it. I'd be better off just guessing what the effect is - luckily I do not have to resort to that, owing to the raft of observations, experiments, and models done and built by scientists.
Data on the terrain and the accelerator are readily available. On average, my car is going to accelerate despite periods of deceleration.
Ah, the car analogy :) Pray tell, what data do you have on the "terrain" of cloud cover and albedo in the pre-industrial age? You're asserting knowledge where you have none :)
Have the effects of cloud cover and albedo changed post the industrial age? What happened previously, did angels blow out clouds from there arses? Are you being clownish on purpose?
So you agree that climate models can be falsified?
Moving the pea under the thimble again? Say you have two dozen climate models, all with the same central conceit - human CO2 emissions overwhelm natural climate variation. Do all two dozen have to miss predictions by say, 5%, in order for the central conceit to be falsified? Just one of them? Just the model mean? Show me the *one* model that you believe represents your central conceit, which if in error regarding any predictions, will falsify your central conceit - none of this "bet on every space on the craps table" nonsense.
Well I guess that argument made sense in your head, since you went to the trouble of typing it out. Something got lost in translation! Anyway, you can just answer the question: So you agree that climate models can be falsified?
I'll assume yes.
Certainly: "natural climate change has continued even through the birth of humanity and the industrial age"
And exactly where in that statement you're quoting from me do I talk about CO2 doubling and its effect on global average temperature?
No bother - I'll accept your belated admission that you know nothing of those effects.
Which is, of course, in direct contradiction to your earlier admission that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
What? CO2 can be a greenhouse gas, and not drive global average temperature changes.
How do you know? You profess to be ignorant of the matter.
In fact, the ice core record shows quite nicely that CO2 changes *after* temperature.
Are you hoping that just by simply posting this enough, it will somehow come to mean something other than what logic and observation tells us it means? ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm) If I wanted to listen to liturgy, I would find a church.
Heck H2O is a greenhouse gas - are you going to assert that humidity drives global average temperature?
You've made quite enough assertions for us to be going on with.
You yourself predicted climate change on the basis of Tyndalls work.