(A) is a decadal trend. Less than two decades doesn't make a trend. Still, when (if?) we get to actually doing regressions on surface temp. data, you'll see why its decadal, and also that there hasn't been a pause.
Again, we'll DO THE MATH OURSELVES, so that you can see first hand.
Are we ready for (B), or are you going to insist on changing (A) to suit your needs (?)
HS, you're straying off topic again. There about a few dozen things to cover in order to describe the tests for AGW. We will do a regression for the past 20 years, and see the results -- but not until we cover the rest of the evidence.
(A) is not a good test, because other things could have caused the warming. But it is necessary.
Many people deny that there is any warming.
Make a note about the "statistically insignificant warming", because we will come back to this, and do a regression ourselves... but we have to do one thing at a time, for said reason.
Okay, so there is some warming. So:
(B) AGW also precludes the absence of a greenhouse effect. Many deny that there is a greenhouse effect. Do you agree that there is a greenhouse effect?
Yes. I'm open to the idea that good tests may exist for AGW,
Good.
but none cited thus far by you
If you mix points together, then it is possible to know nothing about a subject, but still think of yourself as an expert. Slow down, and the mechanisms of ignorance (in the general sense) find it more difficult to operate.
So what would AGW rule out? There are a lot of things, but we'll have to go through them one by one for the said reason.
(A) AGW precludes the absence of a warming trend -- measured at a decadal time-scale. Do you agree that the world has seen warming at a decadal time-scale?
I'm saying that so far, nobody has enumerated a set of good tests for AGW that would discriminate AGW from natural variation.
Are you saying that good tests may exist, but nobody has explained what they are? Meaning that you believe AGW could be falsifiable, but no-one has explained *how* to test it? Is that the contention?
So you are saying that (1) is unfalsifiable because there are no good tests for it. Is that your contention? That there is not test for (1) that discriminates between AGW and natural variation. Can we agree that that is your contention.
1) AGW - the hypothesis that human activity, specifically CO2 emissions, are the cause of measurable increase in the global average temperature beyond natural variation.
2) CAGW - the hypothesis that human activity, specifically CO2 emissions, are the cause of measurable increase in the global average temperature beyond natural variation that will cause more harm than benefit. Typically asserted as *significantly* more harm than benefit.
Great we can agree on (1) and (2) as statements of the two theories. Praise the Lord. Okay, now are you maintaining that there are no good tests for (1)?
Two things: if you actually understood Popper, then you'd realize that a statement of a theory is not the same as finding good tests for the theory.
Secondly, as a matter of rhetorical style, you must stick to one thing at a time.
These are such elementary principles of conduct... it should intrigue you why you *don't* do this. Do you believe that, in good faith, you really want to understand these issues?
Hi HS, we still have to agree whether AGW/CAGW is falsifiable. If we've made any progress, we've agreed that
(1) AGW would be falsified if natural variables explain the record better than anthropogenic variables.
(2) CAGW would be falsified if sensitivity is low to anthropogenic variables, *or*, if a warmer planet is good/not-a-big-deal
Actually, quite an accurate critique of the AGW/CAGW position - the null hypothesis that needs to be excluded is natural climate change.
Yes.
Not sure if you're being clever with your construction there, but the "net effect" of AGW could have "significant undesirable effects" at the same time that it has significant *desirable* effects.
The net effects are significantly undesirable -- accounting for both desirable and undesirable outcomes.
HS, if you believe that human emitted CO2 has some net effect on surface temperature, then you are ahead of about 50% of "skeptics" out there.
Regarding philosophy of science (POS), you do indeed need to rule out alternative explanations. According to Lakatois, you must show a better theory (or collection there of) in order to falsify, or you are stuck in "naive falsification", which certainly sounds like you.
CAGW can only be shown if the net effect of AGW is going to have significant undesirable effects. As such, it can be falsified by showing low sensitivity, or alternatively, by showing that AGW is not true -- which itself relies on a considerable constellation of testable theories. Leave aside -- just for a moment what low sensitivity is precisely. We can talk about that.
If you can agree to that assessment, I can give you a reasonable testable prediction for CAGW which would kill it with 5-10 years worth of measurement. (The data fits retroactively, but the test cannot be done this way, because the past is the past.)
HS, you're changing your story... this is a classic cognitive escape hatch.
If you want to talk about Popper, then you should do so accurately, which you simply have not done so. The relevant theory from Popper (as I already stated) was about what constitutes a "good test". That has nothing to do with negative observations, or being *forced* to accept a logical conclusion of acceptance of a theory. AS YOU STATED YOURSELF.
Now all you have to do is claim that any test is not a good test, because it is too obvious to argue (everything but sensitivity), or that it is arguable, and therefore not a good test (sensitivity)
The reason why science deniers of all stripes like to reach for falsifiability is because it gives carte blanche to move the goal posts wherever you want.
There is a mountain of evidence that supports AGW, (but not CAGW), which means that potentially major rewriting of science would be required to over-turn it.
From what I surmise, you agree with AGW, but not CAGW. Correct?
Hi HS, I just dug up a short article by Lakatos, a contemporary of Popper. Popper said may of the same things, but not in as direct a way as this. (Popper indirectly addressed this issue via talking about an infinite regress of demands for falsifiability.)
HS, you've stuffed words in his mouth. The quote you gave was about "low-level" empirical tests that falsify, but you were talking about negative observations forcing a single logical acceptance of a theory. (Like ROTFL bad argument.) And now... you're simply claiming that "I don't understand". That I should read a book which you were just furiously reading to find some scrap to support the ridiculous statement you made. I assume that you only have very oblique awareness at this point: that you MADE IT UP WHOLE CLOTH. Yet somehow I should just trust you that you're accurately paraphrasing Popper without any evidence.
Now you do believe in evidence don't you?
If you want to impugn AGW using the philosophy of science, you probably need to look at the Duhem-Quine thesis, which you've probably never heard of.
Just throwing you a bone, since you are obviously pounding the table.
I should add, that what you're really looking for what constitutes a "genuine test of a theory"... which is the pith of what Popper is talking about. A genuine test says nothing about negative observations. It genuine test also does not lead you to directly accept a theory. So your really have no idea what you're talking about.
HS, denial works by changing what is said slightly, and then adding new claims, and this process goes on forever. There will be no talk on sensitivity until you man up about creating new science.
It is obvious that you really believe what you're saying -- which is why its called denial, and not "lying". But we've reached a stage where you are swearing black is white.
Where doe Popper say, as YOU SAID, that falsifiability means a set of negative observations leads to the single logical conclusion of accepting a theory. (Hint: he never says this.)
You can weasel around all day, but we're not playing the game where you change your tune and add more claims.
Popper: "We shall take it as falsified only if we discover a reproducible effect which refutes the theory. In other words, we only accept the falsification if a low-level empirical hypothesis which describes such an effect is proposed and corroborated."
HS: "2) if they are not observed, then the *only* logical conclusion is AGW/CAGW. (sufficient)"
HS: "What don't you understand about the idea of a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis?"
Why talk about sensitivity when you cannot even own up to being balls wrong about what science is?
HS, you are now claiming that Popper says that a set of negative observations can lead to a single logical conclusion to accept a theory. And further that this is what he means by a sufficient condition for falsifiability. But you cannot provide a single quote.
Neither the quote nor the linked article support the assertion that, to quote you:
2) if they are not observed, then the *only* logical conclusion is AGW/CAGW. (sufficient)
You do realize that you are stuffing words in Popper's mouth -- not that hes the be-all-or-end-all of anything -- just that the science denial crowd like the term "falsifiability" even if they do not know what it is.
So it still stands... where does Popper actually say that falsifiability means a set of *negative* observations leads to a single logical conclusion to accept a theory?
HS, I actually know something about the philosophy of science -- from an academic point of view. It's obvious to me that you know next to nothing about it. So... prove me wrong by finding where Popper says (in his writings) that sufficiently falsifiable means a set of observations when not present forces someone to accept a hypothesis. This is a ludicrous assertions.
Science denial generally ends with people creating their own science, and then claiming it is the best science. This is a timeless phenomenon. You are just like Ken Ham.
Hi HS, this is where you invent your own science -- completely ignorant of any discourse on the subject -- proposing tests that no extant scientific theory could pass, including all the ones that you believe.
Can you dig up a reference in published peer reviewed literature of this:
2) if they are not observed, then the *only* logical conclusion is . (sufficient)
There are a lot of quacks who get published in this field... but that's pretty far out there, and you obviously made it up. (aka special ad hoc pleading.)
Slashdot Mirror
just stopping you from your gish gallop away
You really don't know what that means do you.
(A) is a decadal trend. Less than two decades doesn't make a trend. Still, when (if?) we get to actually doing regressions on surface temp. data, you'll see why its decadal, and also that there hasn't been a pause.
Again, we'll DO THE MATH OURSELVES, so that you can see first hand.
Are we ready for (B), or are you going to insist on changing (A) to suit your needs (?)
HS, you're straying off topic again. There about a few dozen things to cover in order to describe the tests for AGW. We will do a regression for the past 20 years, and see the results -- but not until we cover the rest of the evidence.
(A) is not a good test, because other things could have caused the warming. But it is necessary.
Many people deny that there is any warming.
Make a note about the "statistically insignificant warming", because we will come back to this, and do a regression ourselves... but we have to do one thing at a time, for said reason.
Okay, so there is some warming. So:
(B) AGW also precludes the absence of a greenhouse effect. Many deny that there is a greenhouse effect. Do you agree that there is a greenhouse effect?
Yes. I'm open to the idea that good tests may exist for AGW,
Good.
but none cited thus far by you
If you mix points together, then it is possible to know nothing about a subject, but still think of yourself as an expert. Slow down, and the mechanisms of ignorance (in the general sense) find it more difficult to operate.
So what would AGW rule out? There are a lot of things, but we'll have to go through them one by one for the said reason.
(A) AGW precludes the absence of a warming trend -- measured at a decadal time-scale. Do you agree that the world has seen warming at a decadal time-scale?
I'm saying that so far, nobody has enumerated a set of good tests for AGW that would discriminate AGW from natural variation.
Are you saying that good tests may exist, but nobody has explained what they are? Meaning that you believe AGW could be falsifiable, but no-one has explained *how* to test it? Is that the contention?
So you are saying that (1) is unfalsifiable because there are no good tests for it. Is that your contention? That there is not test for (1) that discriminates between AGW and natural variation. Can we agree that that is your contention.
1) AGW - the hypothesis that human activity, specifically CO2 emissions, are the cause of measurable increase in the global average temperature beyond natural variation.
2) CAGW - the hypothesis that human activity, specifically CO2 emissions, are the cause of measurable increase in the global average temperature beyond natural variation that will cause more harm than benefit. Typically asserted as *significantly* more harm than benefit.
Great we can agree on (1) and (2) as statements of the two theories. Praise the Lord. Okay, now are you maintaining that there are no good tests for (1)?
I understand that. I'm asserting you're not finding good tests.
But I'm not talking about good tests yet. One thing at a time.
I've already stated the reason for this. Remember? I'm not dodging, I'm trying to stop a gish gallop.
So, before we get to good tests, can we agree what the theory is.
Two things: if you actually understood Popper, then you'd realize that a statement of a theory is not the same as finding good tests for the theory.
Secondly, as a matter of rhetorical style, you must stick to one thing at a time.
These are such elementary principles of conduct... it should intrigue you why you *don't* do this. Do you believe that, in good faith, you really want to understand these issues?
Hi HS, we still have to agree whether AGW/CAGW is falsifiable. If we've made any progress, we've agreed that
(1) AGW would be falsified if natural variables explain the record better than anthropogenic variables.
(2) CAGW would be falsified if sensitivity is low to anthropogenic variables, *or*, if a warmer planet is good/not-a-big-deal
Can we agree to that?
I don't agree that that has been shown
Slow down. We're not talking about whether it has been shown. But we are talking about if that is what is required (in part) to show CAGW.
Actually, quite an accurate critique of the AGW/CAGW position - the null hypothesis that needs to be excluded is natural climate change.
Yes.
Not sure if you're being clever with your construction there, but the "net effect" of AGW could have "significant undesirable effects" at the same time that it has significant *desirable* effects.
The net effects are significantly undesirable -- accounting for both desirable and undesirable outcomes.
Do you agree to this characterisation?
HS, if you believe that human emitted CO2 has some net effect on surface temperature, then you are ahead of about 50% of "skeptics" out there.
Regarding philosophy of science (POS), you do indeed need to rule out alternative explanations. According to Lakatois, you must show a better theory (or collection there of) in order to falsify, or you are stuck in "naive falsification", which certainly sounds like you.
CAGW can only be shown if the net effect of AGW is going to have significant undesirable effects. As such, it can be falsified by showing low sensitivity, or alternatively, by showing that AGW is not true -- which itself relies on a considerable constellation of testable theories. Leave aside -- just for a moment what low sensitivity is precisely. We can talk about that.
If you can agree to that assessment, I can give you a reasonable testable prediction for CAGW which would kill it with 5-10 years worth of measurement. (The data fits retroactively, but the test cannot be done this way, because the past is the past.)
HS, you're changing your story... this is a classic cognitive escape hatch.
If you want to talk about Popper, then you should do so accurately, which you simply have not done so. The relevant theory from Popper (as I already stated) was about what constitutes a "good test". That has nothing to do with negative observations, or being *forced* to accept a logical conclusion of acceptance of a theory. AS YOU STATED YOURSELF.
Now all you have to do is claim that any test is not a good test, because it is too obvious to argue (everything but sensitivity), or that it is arguable, and therefore not a good test (sensitivity)
The reason why science deniers of all stripes like to reach for falsifiability is because it gives carte blanche to move the goal posts wherever you want.
There is a mountain of evidence that supports AGW, (but not CAGW), which means that potentially major rewriting of science would be required to over-turn it.
From what I surmise, you agree with AGW, but not CAGW. Correct?
Pay particular attention to the difference between naive falsification and falsification.
You do realize that I'm simply explaining to you the difference between a trivial falsification and a non-trivial falsification, right?
Oh yes, I do get that, and I'm trying to point out that you are making stuff up.
Put that aside...
The necessity of falsifiability is not satisfied simply by a trivial falsification
Agreed, but that is not what you said.
HS: "2) if they are not observed, then the *only* logical conclusion is AGW/CAGW. (sufficient)"
HS, you've stuffed words in his mouth. The quote you gave was about "low-level" empirical tests that falsify, but you were talking about negative observations forcing a single logical acceptance of a theory. (Like ROTFL bad argument.) And now... you're simply claiming that "I don't understand". That I should read a book which you were just furiously reading to find some scrap to support the ridiculous statement you made. I assume that you only have very oblique awareness at this point: that you MADE IT UP WHOLE CLOTH. Yet somehow I should just trust you that you're accurately paraphrasing Popper without any evidence.
Now you do believe in evidence don't you?
If you want to impugn AGW using the philosophy of science, you probably need to look at the Duhem-Quine thesis, which you've probably never heard of.
Just throwing you a bone, since you are obviously pounding the table.
I should add, that what you're really looking for what constitutes a "genuine test of a theory"... which is the pith of what Popper is talking about. A genuine test says nothing about negative observations. It genuine test also does not lead you to directly accept a theory. So your really have no idea what you're talking about.
Know what Dunning-Kruger refers to?
HS, denial works by changing what is said slightly, and then adding new claims, and this process goes on forever. There will be no talk on sensitivity until you man up about creating new science.
It is obvious that you really believe what you're saying -- which is why its called denial, and not "lying". But we've reached a stage where you are swearing black is white.
Where doe Popper say, as YOU SAID, that falsifiability means a set of negative observations leads to the single logical conclusion of accepting a theory. (Hint: he never says this.)
You can weasel around all day, but we're not playing the game where you change your tune and add more claims.
Popper: "We shall take it as falsified only if we discover a reproducible effect which refutes the theory. In other words, we only accept the falsification if a low-level empirical hypothesis which describes such an effect is proposed and corroborated."
HS: "2) if they are not observed, then the *only* logical conclusion is AGW/CAGW. (sufficient)"
HS: "What don't you understand about the idea of a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis?"
Why talk about sensitivity when you cannot even own up to being balls wrong about what science is?
Do you know what Dunning-Kruger refers to?
HS, you are now claiming that Popper says that a set of negative observations can lead to a single logical conclusion to accept a theory. And further that this is what he means by a sufficient condition for falsifiability. But you cannot provide a single quote.
YOU ARE A JOKE.
2) if they are not observed, then the *only* logical conclusion is AGW/CAGW. (sufficient)
You do realize that you are stuffing words in Popper's mouth -- not that hes the be-all-or-end-all of anything -- just that the science denial crowd like the term "falsifiability" even if they do not know what it is.
So it still stands... where does Popper actually say that falsifiability means a set of *negative* observations leads to a single logical conclusion to accept a theory?
This misses the whole point of falsifiability.
HS, I actually know something about the philosophy of science -- from an academic point of view. It's obvious to me that you know next to nothing about it. So... prove me wrong by finding where Popper says (in his writings) that sufficiently falsifiable means a set of observations when not present forces someone to accept a hypothesis. This is a ludicrous assertions.
Science denial generally ends with people creating their own science, and then claiming it is the best science. This is a timeless phenomenon. You are just like Ken Ham.
2) if they are not observed, then the *only* logical conclusion is . (sufficient)
We both know you're pulling this out of your ass.
Can you dig up a reference in published peer reviewed literature of this:
2) if they are not observed, then the *only* logical conclusion is . (sufficient)
There are a lot of quacks who get published in this field... but that's pretty far out there, and you obviously made it up. (aka special ad hoc pleading.)
Of course, you're the scientific one.