You remember how Statists used to run around claiming that such-and-such strategy or policy was "right out of Karl Rove's playbook"?
Well, here's the Statist playbook on getting Cap And Trade passed ASAP, courtesy of links provided by Ann Althouse.
Page 12, which describes how to frame the opposition, is so Saul Alinsky that it makes my head hurt.
Why is it so important for them to get something passed immediately? Here's Ms. Althouse:
You see why this is absolutely necessary, don't you? What if nothing is done and global warming... doesn't happen? What a disaster! But if disastrously extreme measures are taken and then global warming doesn't happen? What a great relief! It will be impossible to tell whether the solution worked or whether global warming just wasn't going to happen anyway. Win-win!
These guys want to control industry, transportation, and most of all, they want to control you. I've never understood that mindset, but I admit that there's lots of money in it.
But the climate is not cooperating with the computer models. The temps have been flat for a while, if not showing a cooling trend in North America. As best I can tell, it all depends on who is reading the thermometers, massaging the data, and then claiming that the dog ate their homework.
Even worse, is there anything that would be accepted as proof that Global Warming isn't happening?
Here's my current favorite debating point when discussing this with alarmists:
I don't believe that God intervenes in what's happening on this planet. Or anywhere else. But hey, I'm open to discussion. You can change my mind. If you tell me God has revealed to you that on July 13th of 2021, a baby will be born with two heads, and by the age of two, one head will start speaking Aramaic and the other will speak Choctaw, I'm going to have to re-evaluate my theology if that unlikely event comes to pass.
If you have no scientific background, and you tell me that God has revealed to you, through prayer, how to cure pancreatic cancer, and lo and behold you have a cure for pancreatic cancer, then I have to do some thinking. (And praying.)
If God were to suddenly interfere with our TV and radio signals for a year and beam in programming from heaven that explains the Book Of Revelation, I would affirm that I've been wrong.
For the debate on this issue to matter one way or the other, there has to be a possibility of proving one side or the other as false. But there are millions of good people out there who will always believe that God intervenes. They can't come up with a scenario that would disprove their opinion that God intervenes in their lives all day every day.
So.....has the Alarmist side of the Global Warming debate ever admitted that there could be climate trends that would disprove their belief in man-made Global Warming? I haven't found it yet. Ice, snow, cold, and hot are all proof that we're warming the planet. (Plus, do you remember about three years ago, when it became politically incorrect to say "Global Warming" instead of the preferable "Climate Change"? Ever wonder what that was about?)
The rest of us see the proof every day, and the more snowstorms we see, the more important it is for Obama/Pelosi/Reid to strike while the iron....unh....isn't hot.
39 comments:
As has been pointed out repeatedly -- it's all about POWER, POWER, and MORE POWER.
And those that have it are always looking to gather more, and aren't willing to give it up voluntarily.
The power to tax is the power to control.
B Woodman
III-per
Nice argument. It should work well with liberals, but it won't.
Have you seen the movie Idiocracy? Arguing with them about AGW is like trying to explain to them that putting Brawndo on plants is bad. All they can answer is that "Brawndo's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes." Of course, they don't know what electrolytes are.
99.9% of them can't even tell you the five most abundant greenhouse gasses. They can't tell you which gasses trap the most heat. They can't tell you the NAME of a climate scientist. Yet they believe AGW is going to destroy the world.
Your religion analogy should bring them to Jesus, but they don't recognize their beliefs as faith-based.
While I agree about falsifiable claims, if God exists, of course, he would be an extradimensional being where it is entirely impossible for our limited senses and intellect to grasp. I'm not trying to say, "You should believe in God because proof is not possible." What I'm simply saying is that AGW should be entirely observable if it exists while God need not necessarily be observable.
If you haven't seen Idiocracy, you either have to have 1) a sophisticated sense of irony, 2) a completely unsophisticated sense of humor, or 3) have to be drunk or stoned, to enjoy it.
But the climate is not cooperating with the computer models. The temps have been flat for a while, if not showing a cooling trend in North America.
Who says so?
Seriously.
Who?
Your link goes to...FoxNews.
(No surprises there, sadly)
Why are you getting your science information from...Fox?
What's wrong with getting your science information from the science community?
Get your science from the people that do the work and are prepared to back it up.
As best I can tell, it all depends on who is reading the thermometers, massaging the data, and then claiming that the dog ate their homework.
Or maybe that's what certain people with vested interests want you to believe?
Did that ever occur to you?
There is no substitute for science.
Science is the study of reality.
If you really want to understand what is happening (or not happening) with the Earth's climate then you must look to the science.
Prayer, your "gut feelings", talking heads on TV and looking out the window are poor substitutes.
Even worse, is there anything that would be accepted as proof that Global Warming isn't happening?
Science does not deal in "proof".
It deals in evidence.
The evidence of global warming is so great and extensive that it's managed to convince every single scientific communtity on the planet.
There is no conspiracy.
It's not a con.
It's not a hoax.
It's just science, done the boring old-fashioned way.
(Plus, do you remember about three years ago, when it became politically incorrect to say "Global Warming" instead of the preferable "Climate Change"? Ever wonder what that was about?)
(...stunned silence...)
How many times must I post this link? Eight times? Eight hundred times?
The terms "global warming" and "climate change" are not evidence of some nefarious conspiracy double-talk or sleazy backpedalling.
There's a very mundane and unexciting history behind the two terms.
Welcome to the wonderful world of etymology.
The rest of us see the proof every day, and the more snowstorms we see...
The plural of anecdote is not data.
If you are going to look seriously at scientific issues, then you have a responsibility to try and genuinely understand the science instead of making a grotesque carticature of it all.
Get your science from science sources.
Try NASA for a change.
They are always good.
99.9% of them can't even tell you the five most abundant greenhouse gasses.
NASA can tell you what they are.
This nice lady probably knows quite a lot about the non-abunant gases too.
They can't tell you which gasses trap the most heat.
NASA can do that too.
They can't tell you the NAME of a climate scientist.
NASA can tell you the names of climate scientists.
Lots of them.
All they have to do is look at their payroll lists.
Easy.
Yet they believe AGW is going to destroy the world.
Instead of making up stuff as you go along, you could actually find out what the scientific community is really saying.
Ask NASA, for example.
Your religion analogy should bring them to Jesus, but they don't recognize their beliefs as faith-based.
NASA is not a temple.
They do science, not religion.
Honest.
(That's how they got to the moon 'n all.)
Cedric,
Is man-made global warming falsifiable?
What would you accept as evidence that it isn't happening?
Is man-made global warming falsifiable?
Short answer: yes.
Falsifiability is a vital part of science. You must already know this.
A scientific theory or hypothesis doesn't even get out of the starting gate without it being falsifiable.
That's basic stuff.
The scientific community has been making observations on climate and pressing the alarm bells for decades now.
Do you honestly believe that nobody, anywhere remembered to make sure that their observations were falsifiable?
Do you really want to entertain the idea that NASA and the Royal Society and the USGC and NOAA and everybody else just magically forgot how to do their job at it's most basic level?
Really?
Would you really feel comfortable marching up to the gates of Cape Canaveral and shaking your fist in the air yelling "You durned scientists ain't doin' real science! It's not falsifiable! Y'all forgot about the falsifiable part."
Don't do it. Don't go there.
Creationists make the same mistake.
They launch criticism after criticism after ill-founded criticism of the Theory of Evolution.
They get absolutely nowhere.
Rather than admit that their arguments suck and have no value in real science, they bring out the same tired canard that you are bringing out.
Exactly the same...
Any fact can be fit into the theory of evolution. Therefore, evolution is not falsifiable and is not a proper scientific theory.
What would you accept as evidence that it isn't happening?
A better question would be ask what the scientists actually doing the work of studying our climate would accept as evidence that AGW isn't happening.
(I'm just some guy on the internet.
Doesn't matter in the slightest what I personally would accept.)
You base your observations on anecdotal evidence and opinion polls and political punditry and the private life of Al Gore and the "single study fallacy" and a huge dollop of confirmation bias.
Scientists don't do their job that way.
It doesn't work.
There is no substitute for science.
"What is happening to the Earth's climate" is a good and fair and reasonable question.
It's not a tricky question.
It's not a sneaky commie question.
It's a scientific question.
It a question about reality.
Science is the study of reality.
The only way you can find out about the Earth's climate is to study it...scientifically.
That requires experts.
That requires people who know what they are talking about.
The climate is...complicated.
You need people who know what they are doing because they are trained professionals to get out there and do the work.
Science requires work.
Lots of it.
Years of painstaking observations covering multiple different lines of evidence involving all of the Earth Sciences.
No short cuts.
What would you accept as evidence that it isn't happening?
As I said, I'm nobody.
Doesn't matter what I would accept.
But since you asked...
Peer-reviewed research.
Mountains of it.
Mountains and mountains and mountains of it.
I'd accept that.
Covering ALL of the Earth Sciences.
Covering decades of painstaking work.
That I would cheerfully accept.
Piles and piles of different lines of independent evidence that is so overwhelming that every single scientific community comes on board, leaving only isolated, elderly, contrarians in their wake.
I'd like to see that.
The same door that I used as an enterance is the same one I would use as an exit.
The only possible counter to research is...more research.
@Cedric
You had a very simple question and you failed answering to it.
Can you name at least one way to disprove AWG or not? That BS with more peer-reviewed research means nothing.
And please ( if you will ) try to answer as short as possible. I've heard all the things you had written over and over again, but nobody could give an example of what will prove AWG false.
You had a very simple question and you failed answering to it.
Basic English literacy fail.
There was not "a question".
There were two questions.
The first one was...
Is man-made global warming falsifiable?
The second one was...
What would you accept as evidence that it isn't happening?
See?
Two questions.
Not one.
Two.
And please ( if you will ) try to answer as short as possible.
The answer to the first question was "Yes".
That's about as short as it gets.
The answer to the second question was "Peer reviewed research. Mountains of it".
Fairly straight forward.
Very short answers.
What's your problem?
Can you name at least one way to disprove AWG or not?
Science deals in evidence, not "proof".
If you want to demonstrate that AGW is all wrong then you need to demonstrate that scientifically.
That requires peer-reviewed research.
There is no substitute for science.
It's the same thing with the Theory of Evolution.
How do you show that modern biology is all wrong?
Peer-reviewed research.
How do you show that HIV doesn't really cause AIDS?
Research.
Scientific research.
AGW is based not on speeches by Al Gore or how fat he is.
Nor is it based on people looking out their window and taking their best guess.
That's not science.
If you want to understand the Earth's climate then you have to do the work.
Real work.
Climate deniers are ultmately lazy.
They refuse to enter the scientific arena.
That's why they are forced to make fradulent lists to dupe a gullible public.
Exactly like the creationists do.
Exactly like the HIV deniers do.
Exactly like real scientists DON'T!
Do you genuinely believe that AGW is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific?
Do you really think that NASA and every single scientific community on the planet doesn't understand falsifiability?
There is no vast, spooky conspiracy.
NASA is not some religious cult.
Nor are they Commies.
Honest.
@Cedric
I didn't counted all the questions you got but only mentioned one that you are unable to respond.
The failure to understand that is on your part. Simple logical questions seams to be way beyond your reason capabilities.
Maybe if I try to make it even simpler for you, you will eventually get it.
Here are some of the ways the theory of evolution could be falsified:
* a static fossil record;
* true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs) and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, which transfers relatively small amounts of DNA between lineages, or symbiosis, where two whole organisms come together;
* a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;
* observations of organisms being created.
( http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html )
Can you name one way to falsify AWG?
I didn't counted all the questions you got but only mentioned one that you are unable to respond.
Wrong.
This is what you said...
You had a very simple question and you failed answering to it.
There were only two questions.
They were:
1) Is man-made global warming falsifiable?
2)What would you accept as evidence that it isn't happening?
Just two questions.
You can tell that they are questions because they have the "?" symbol at the end of them.
Two questions.
I responded to both of them in a fair and reasonable manner.
Deal with it.
Can you name one way to falsify AWG?
I'm an anonymous person on the internet.
Doesn't matter if I can name or not name a way to falsify AGW.
Just like the Theory of Evolution.
Evolution would be still falsifiable even if I could not name a single method of falsification.
My personal ignorance of biology would not be important at all to the scientific community and science in general.
You have done the right thing and gone to science sources for your scientific understanding of Evolution.
Talkorigins.org is an excellent resource that is written by experts who know what they are talking about.
They are working biologists and educators with many years of experience that honestly represent the scientific consensus on the Theory of Evolution and modern biology in general.
You did not go to a creationist nutjob website run by a semi-retired TV repairman.
The same standard goes for any science topic.
The same goes for AGW.
The standard of gathering information that you accept for biology is the same standard you should use for climatology.
By asking me about falsifying AGW, you are asking the wrong guy.
You should be asking the scientists.
If you really wanted to know how to falsify AGW then...you go to the people that do the work.
Not Foxnews.
Not no-name blogs.
Not op-eds in newspapers.
Not anonymous people on the internet.
You go to the scientific community.
You need to demand the peer-reviewed research and lots of it.
There is no other reasonable option.
Can you name one way to falsify AWG?
There is no "one" way.
The same door that you enter is the one by which you leave.
AGW does not rest on "one" single study or piece of evidence.
It relies on multiple, independent lines of evidence covering all of the Earth Sciences.
So to falsify AGW, you'd have to provide newer, better evidence covering all of the Earth sciences.
There's no magic bullet.
Can you name one way to falsify AWG?
Evidence that CO2 doesn't trap heat?
Glaciers having a massive growth spurt all over the world?
Basic chemistry being overturned showing how oceans are not becoming more acidic.
A mechanism that explains all the observations made better than AGW?
(For example: Solar forcing or cloud cover>)
A super secret mega-volcano that dwarfs all industrial carbon emissions and produces isotopic signatures that magically mimic industrial pollutants?
Permafrost mysteriously re-freezing and not releasing any more methane?
A selection of those would be good to see.
Whew....
For a few days, with all that talk about peer review, I thought I was going to have to teach you about a logical fallacy called "The Appeal To Authority". :)
For a few days, with all that talk about peer review, I thought I was going to have to teach you about a logical fallacy called "The Appeal To Authority".
Allen, I welcome any examination of my methodology in figuring out science from baloney.
If you think I'm doing something wrong and your system is better then by all means spell it out for me.
I'll listen.
I'll be fair and open and honest about it.
(Seriously, I mean it.)
However, I am confident that my way is science-based.
Carl Sagan and I would not have much to argue about.
On the other hand, he would probably be sorely disappointed by your efforts.
Al Gore this and Al Gore that.
Har, har.
Global warming (oh no, climate change)
Climate change (oh no, global warming)
Har, har.
Enviro-hippies/Commies/Big Gubbinment/Pen-pushers/Lefties after my money.
Har, har.
Opinion polls in Europe.
Har, har.
I looked out my window yesterday.
Har, har.
You didn't get these talking points from "The Demon-haunted world".
They have nothing to do with real science. Reject them.
Stick to the science.
There is no better way.
I rely upon peer review.
Lots of it.
It's a vital component.
That's not just me being selective and applying that principle to only global warming.
That goes for any science topic.
No exceptions.
A new discovery in evolutionary biology?
Show me the peer-reviewed research.
A new super-duper cancer treatment?
Show me the peer-reviewed research.
A bacteria that has an Intelligent Designer's barcode and copyright signature on it?
Show me the peer-reviewed research.
Somebody claims to have invented a perpetual motion machine?
Cool.
Show me the peer-reviewed research.
Lots of it.
I can say with complete confidence that there is no major scientific concept or understanding that I accept that cannot be completely supported by peer-reviewed research.
Further, if somebody clearly and fairly showed me that I had unwittingly accepted an unscientific position that was not based upon peer-reviewed research then I would be grateful for the correction.
Happened to me once with acupuncture a long time ago.
Could possibly happen again.
I'm only human.
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
However, your acceptance of climate denialism serves you very poorly.
The same methodolgy that allows you to reject climatology will allow you to reject other important scientific issues.
That's dangerous.
Re-examine your methodology.
Look for flaws.
Test it against other important scientific issues where you have no emotional or political biases either way.
As it stands, you system does not protect you from the crap and pseudo-science.
You are not really following science at all.
Rather, like most people, you are a slave to your natural biases and adhere to information given to you by your 'tribe'.
"Confirmation bias" and "Appeals to authority" are just empty phrases to you. You don't rigorously apply them to your own or anybody elses thinking.
You use them only as window dressing.
Take them seriously for a change.
If you truly believe that science is important then be honest about it.
Drop the zombie talking points.
Stick to the science.
Put some distance between yourself and the Jenny Macarthys and the Kent Hovinds of the world.
@Cedric
Now you're trying to tell me what I said in the first place. Hilarious.
Once again, I didn't counted the questions you got but only named one that you're incapable to answer.
I'm an anonymous person on the internet.
Doesn't matter if I can name or not name a way to falsify AGW.
Actually it matters. This will make the difference between believing one so called authority and deciding for yourself.
You have done the right thing and gone to science sources for your scientific understanding of Evolution.
I know and I don't really need your approval on this.
Can you do the same with AGW? Is there any science in it?
If you really wanted to know how to falsify AGW then...you go to the people that do the work.
You're the one making a religion out of it. I'm only pointing your ignorance.
AGW does not rest on "one" single study or piece of evidence.
You're still not getting it and now I'm afraid you will never will.
This question is not about how many studies or how many so called scientists are making this claim.
It's about it's validity and this can't be based on numbers.
Evidence that CO2 doesn't trap heat?
This is a known fact ( that CO2 traps heat, just to be clear ) and can't be used to falsify a theory.
Glaciers having a massive growth spurt all over the world?
Of course, only humans ( do you even know why is called AGW ? ) can generate the heat. :)
Basic chemistry being overturned showing how oceans are not becoming more acidic.
Do you even know what falsifying means and why it is important for a scientific theory?
A mechanism that explains all the observations made better than AGW?
(For example: Solar forcing or cloud cover>)
A super secret mega-volcano that dwarfs all industrial carbon emissions and produces isotopic signatures that magically mimic industrial pollutants?
Permafrost mysteriously re-freezing and not releasing any more methane?
Yes. That's it. Mysterious, imaginable and unimaginable problems that you can't understand but believe are man made can be falsified by more mysterious and unimaginable theories. I bet you believe the Noe's flood is an historical event.
So the answer it is indeed very short and simple. You can't name any way to falsify AGW and more then that you can't mention any source that can.
You can only copy/paste text that you religiously believe, incapable to understand I already saw all that crap before and it doesn't impress me.
@Cedric
Now you're trying to tell me what I said in the first place. Hilarious.
Once again, I didn't counted the questions you got but only named one that you're incapable to answer.
I'm an anonymous person on the internet.
Doesn't matter if I can name or not name a way to falsify AGW.
Actually it matters. This will make the difference between believing one so called authority and deciding for yourself.
You have done the right thing and gone to science sources for your scientific understanding of Evolution.
Can you do the same with AGW?
If you really wanted to know how to falsify AGW then...you go to the people that do the work.
You're the one making a religion out of it. I'm only pointing your ignorance.
AGW does not rest on "one" single study or piece of evidence.
This question is not about how many studies or how many so called scientists are making this claim.
It's about it's validity and this can't be based on numbers.
Evidence that CO2 doesn't trap heat?
This is a known fact ( that CO2 traps heat, just to be clear ) and can't be used to falsify a theory.
Glaciers having a massive growth spurt all over the world?
Of course, only humans can generate the heat. :)
Basic chemistry being overturned showing how oceans are not becoming more acidic.
This has nothing to do with falsifying a scientific theory.
A mechanism that explains all the observations made better than AGW?
(For example: Solar forcing or cloud cover>)
A super secret mega-volcano that dwarfs all industrial carbon emissions and produces isotopic signatures that magically mimic industrial pollutants?
Permafrost mysteriously re-freezing and not releasing any more methane?
Yes. That's it. Mysterious, imaginable and unimaginable problems that you can't understand but believe are man made can be falsified by more mysterious and unimaginable theories. I bet you believe the Noe's flood is an historical event.
So the answer it is indeed very short and simple. You can't name any way to falsify AGW and more then that you can't mention any source that can.
You can only copy/paste text that you religiously believe, incapable to understand I already saw all that crap before and it doesn't impress me.
@Cedric
Now you're trying to tell me what I said in the first place. Hilarious.
Once again, I didn't counted the questions you got but only named one that you're incapable to answer.
I'm an anonymous person on the internet.
Doesn't matter if I can name or not name a way to falsify AGW.
Actually it matters. This will make the difference between believing one so called authority and deciding for yourself.
You have done the right thing and gone to science sources for your scientific understanding of Evolution.
Can you do the same with AGW?
If you really wanted to know how to falsify AGW then...you go to the people that do the work.
You're the one making a religion out of it. I'm only pointing your ignorance.
AGW does not rest on "one" single study or piece of evidence.
This question is not about how many studies or how many so called scientists are making this claim.
It's about it's validity and this can't be based on numbers.
Evidence that CO2 doesn't trap heat?
This is a known fact ( that CO2 traps heat, just to be clear ) and can't be used to falsify a theory.
Glaciers having a massive growth spurt all over the world?
Of course, only humans can generate the heat. :)
Basic chemistry being overturned showing how oceans are not becoming more acidic.
This has nothing to do with falsifying a scientific theory.
A mechanism that explains all the observations made better than AGW?
(For example: Solar forcing or cloud cover>)
A super secret mega-volcano that dwarfs all industrial carbon emissions and produces isotopic signatures that magically mimic industrial pollutants?
Permafrost mysteriously re-freezing and not releasing any more methane?
Yes. That's it. Mysterious, imaginable and unimaginable problems that you can't understand but believe are man made can be falsified by more mysterious and unimaginable theories. I bet you believe the Noe's flood is an historical event.
So the answer it is indeed very short and simple. You can't name any way to falsify AGW and more then that you can't mention any source that can.
You can only copy/paste text that you religiously believe, incapable to understand I already saw all that crap before and it doesn't impress me.
I've been banging this drum for years. It is totally unfalsifiable. Not how any whether oddity can be laid at the AGW door.
In the UK we have been promised a climate due to AGW that is either (a) Med-like or (b) Norwegian depending on the Gulf Stream.
Hence the retreat of the Goreites to the fortress of "climate chaos" (aka Weather) and the "If we don't decide the science is settled and act NOW" something bad will happen. Yes, "something".
Look, if it's a "something bad" then clearly they don't have a clue what they are actually saying do they? They are just making stuff up.
It's all profound bollocks. It's typical lefty nonsense which is almost always (whether it's something they want to ban or implement) dressed up in the cloak of stuff that sounds scientific - like there's percentages and stats and graphs and stuff so it must be true. Street corner ranters do the same but they quote the Book of Revelation and not ice-core samples.
The only honest answer to the question of climate change is "We don't know!" I've studied enough science to know that some questions are best met with a Gallic shrug. That's not to say we ought to give up on these things because we might crack 'em one day.
I blame the relationship between the media and science. Scientists always feel the need to simplify and present "truths". It's been going on since science attained it's present position as a repository of truth. It's a work in progress and I'm sorrry media guys but if you can't hack that then the science community should have the balls to tell 'em they just don't know.
Alas they don't do that because getting on TV and getting funding are nice. We have seen this before with nuclear fusion (always 20 years hence), nuclear fission (electricity too cheap to meter), genetics (the secret of life itself). Science colludes with the hype because it needs the money and because scientists love appearing "relevant" and not dull ivory tower buggers. And of course the media loves the hype because quite frankly, "some bloke invents a more efficient microwave oven" doesn't shift much copy. But if you can have Craig Venter "playing God" then... you have a story.
And of course since Mary Shelley, science always has to have it's double-edged sword angle and mad men cackling in Bavarian castles whilst an Igor cowers.
Once again, I didn't counted the questions you got but only named one that you're incapable to answer.
There were only two.
There was no extra one.
(shrug)
Actually it matters. This will make the difference between believing one so called authority and deciding for yourself.
Welcome to the wonderful world of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
I'm not a climatologist.
I don't 'decide for myself' anymore than I self-medicate.
In matters of science, I defer to the people that do the work.
I demand peer-reviewed research and lots of it.
Can you do the same with AGW?
Sure.
NASA.
You're the one making a religion out of it.
How is NASA religious?
I'm only pointing your ignorance.
Ignorance of what exactly?
Climatology?
Sure.
I freely admit to knowing nothing about Climatology.
I'm not a climatologist at all.
Not even close.
I'm just an anonymous guy on the internet.
Same goes for Biology and Medicine and Geology etc.
I'd like to understand them all.
But there are only so many hours in a day.
If there's a subject that I don't know about then...I go to the people that do the work.
(NASA, for example.)
This question is not about how many studies or how many so called scientists are making this claim.
Well, you were the one looking for a single magic bullet.
Not me.
This is what you said...
Can you name one way to falsify AWG?
Like I explained to you, there is no "one" way.
The door you entered is the one you leave by.
It's the same with the Age of the Earth.
This is a known fact ( that CO2 traps heat, just to be clear ) and can't be used to falsify a theory.
Ok. Why not?
Glaciers having a massive growth spurt all over the world?
Of course, only humans can generate the heat.
If you have an alternative theory that better fits the evidence then go for it.
Write your paper.
The world awaits.
Talk is cheap.
Basic chemistry being overturned showing how oceans are not becoming more acidic.
This has nothing to do with falsifying a scientific theory.
Ok. Why not?
Yes. That's it. Mysterious, imaginable and unimaginable problems...
You have not followed the science very well.
What is your problem?
I gave you the links.
None of those suggestions are my ideas.
A mechanism that explains all the observations made better than AGW?
That's fair. Scientists coming up with a mechanism that explains all the observations better than AGW.
It doesn't get any more scientific than that.
Scientists have indeed tried.
They are still alive and out there.
Solar forcing and cloud cover had their shot at the big time.
It didn't work out because it didn't do as good a job as AGW.
A super secret mega-volcano that dwarfs all industrial carbon emissions and produces isotopic signatures that magically mimic industrial pollutants?
Yep.
Deniers promote this idea too.
The actual location of these secret volcanoes are known only to climate deniers and are the true cause of global warming.
I think it's kinda dumb.
As does the USGS.
Permafrost mysteriously re-freezing and not releasing any more methane?
Yep. This one's straightforward too.
If permafrost can melt then...it should be able to re-freeze under the right conditions.
Nothing too exotic about that.
You can only copy/paste text that you religiously believe...
Science is not a religion.
By checking out the NASA website, I am not being a religious zealot.
Honest.
I've been banging this drum for years. It is totally unfalsifiable.
Yes. Those clever tricky scientists. Every single branch of the physical sciences in on the plot.
And none broke ranks in all those decades!
The fiends.
The evilutionists have done the same thing.
If only the physicists (for example) of the world would stand up for real science and tell everybody that the Theory of Evolution isn't real science.
Then they could do the same for AGW.
It's typical lefty nonsense...
Ah yes, the Commies.
When did NASA get infiltrated by the Communists?
Was it before or after NASA helped the free world win the Cold War?
Street corner ranters do the same but they quote the Book of Revelation and not ice-core samples.
Yes, science is just a religion.
Everybody know that.
Shame on NASA for being no more than a cult.
You see through their lies.
"Since the ideas proposed by deniers do not meet rigorous scientific standards, they cannot hope to compete against the mainstream theories. They cannot raise the level of their beliefs up to the standards of mainstream science; therefore they attempt to lower the status of the denied science down to the level of religious faith, characterizing scientific consensus as scientific dogma. As one HIV denier quoted in Maggiore's book remarked,
“There is classical science, the way it's supposed to work, and then there's religion. I regained my sanity when I realized that AIDS science was a religious discourse. The one thing I will go to my grave not understanding is why everyone was so quick to accept everything the government said as truth. Especially the central myth: the cause of AIDS is known.”
Others suggest that the entire spectrum of modern medicine is a religion.
Deniers also paint themselves as skeptics working to break down a misguided and deeply rooted belief."
Science colludes with the hype because it needs the money and because scientists love appearing "relevant" and not dull ivory tower buggers.
Yes, science is corrupt.
But you see through their conspiracy of lies.
Lucky us.
"Deniers argue that because scientists receive grant money, fame, and prestige as a result of their research, it is in their best interest to maintain the status quo. This type of thinking is convenient for deniers as it allows them to choose which authorities to believe and which ones to dismiss as part of a grand conspiracy. In addition to being selective, their logic is also internally inconsistent. For example, they dismiss studies that support the HIV hypothesis as being biased by “drug money,” while they accept uncritically the testimony of HIV deniers who have a heavy financial stake in their alternative treatment modalities."
@Cedric
Man no matter how the question is presented to you you're still interpreting it in a very strange way and start copy/paste here more boring unrelated texts.
You have no clue what "falsifiability" is and I suggest you start investigating it before answering like this:
Like I explained to you, there is no "one" way.
That is the most stupid answer you could have.
All the crap you presented here is only a religion because you can't call it science until is falsifiable.
Falsifiability is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science. The concept was made popular by Karl Popper, who, in his philosophical analysis of the scientific method, concluded that a hypothesis, proposition, or theory is "scientific" only if it is falsifiable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
So either present how AGW is falsifiable or admit that you made a religion out of it and you don't have the honesty to recognize it's weakness.
This is a known fact ( that CO2 traps heat, just to be clear ) and can't be used to falsify a theory.
Ok. Why not?
Basic chemistry being overturned showing how oceans are not becoming more acidic.
This has nothing to do with falsifying a scientific theory.
Ok. Why not?
So either present how AGW is falsifiable or admit that you made a religion out of it and you don't have the honesty to recognize it's weakness.
I have no idea why you think that AGW is unfalsifiable.
You are not making any sense.
AGW is based on multiple, independent lines of evidence covering all of the physical sciences.
Any one of these lines of evidence could be falsified by better observations or experiments that could turn up something new or unexpected.
If it turns out that carbon doesn't act as a greenhouse gas the way the science currently says it does then that would falsify AGW.
That's blatantly obvious.
Or, alternatively, you could show that something else was making all the carbon. (like volcanoes).
That's a well publicised idea.
(A dumb idea but...if it was true then, yeah, mega-super volcanoes secretly pumping out so much carbon that industry emissions are trivial in comparison would put a king-sized hole in AGW.)
Or you could show that the measurements of carbon in the atmosphere were all incredibally wrong.
Measurements can indeed be falsified by better measurements.
No secret there.
Or you could grab new data and try and resurrect solar forcing or cloud cover as a better explanation for what's going on with the Earth's climate.
Superceeding one theory with a better one is standard practice in science.
You have not made a case that AGW is unfalsifiable.
If AGW was actually unfalsifiable then it would be impossible to keep such an amazing thing a secret.
Just like it would be impossible to keep secret the fact of The theory of Evolution is unfalsifiable.
Yet, nobody, (not even the professional deniers) are taking this line of approach.
"Global warming is unfalsifiable" returns only about 64 hits on google.
"AGW is unfalsifiable" fares even worse at 16 hits.
I can understand that the climatologists are keeping their dastardly secret to themselves.
But why are the biologists not spilling the beans?
Or the geologists?
Or any other branch of the sciences?
Why are the tiny handful of scientists and nursing home retirees that firmly reject AGW keeping this Earth shattering secret to themselves?
Probably because even they recognise that it's just a very, very silly talking point.
Jaw-droppingly silly.
Scientific theories that are unfalsifiable are the kind of thing that would be noticed.
Very, VERY quickly.
By pretty much anybody and everybody with even a basic science education.
Yet the buzz just ain't happening.
Yet don't let that stop you.
Heavens no.
Tell us how you found out that AGW is really unfalsifiable.
Where did you get this notion from?
You certainly didn't get it from NASA.
:)
When can we expect you to publish a scientific paper on the subject that will be your instant ticket to fame and fortune?
Decided to have some more fun with google-searching and finding out more about the “agw is unfalsifiable” meme.
Who's buying this nonsense?
Well, with a different variation, I managed to get a whole 8300 hits.
(Ok, so it’s not overwhelming but it’s better than 16.)
Page One of the google search revealed this staggering array of rich science resources.
Fun for all the family.
Yet one leapt out from the herd of nothing-much-in-particular.
That was (of course) none other then Conservapedia.
Naturally, I read the entry.
"To be considered scientific, a hypothesis must be "falsifiable", i.e., capable of being proven false. If no one, not even the supporters of the hypothesis, can think of a way the hypothesis might be proven false, then most scientists would agree that it is not part of science (see pseudoscience). However, the history of science is full of examples whereby supporters of various theories refused to consider the prospect that someone might prove them wrong. Supporters of the evolution and global warming theories are like this."
Well, what's not to love about that last sentence?
All science, all the time.
Comedy that writes itself.
It's funny how you keep going back to evolution while you're not keeping the same standards on comparing it with AGW. Don't you get it this argument was already addressed when I've posted the link to ways to falsify evolution?
It's also funny how you post links explaining why falsifiability is important and what it means but you still have no idea what falsifiability means and refuse to try to understand it.
The examples you gave are not testing the influence of man on climate and are ideas that could be very easily tested ( they have been tested already ) without determining in any way if the climate change is influenced or not by man. So you have to find something else. :)
The fact that are so few links about it is supporting my opinion that you can't present any way to falsify AGW. Instead you continue to copy/paste text and repeating like a child "yes, it is falsifiable" or "scientists know better" or "you're just like an evolution denier" ...
Stop posting that crap trying to move the subject. The answer should be very easy to post: a short description with a link for more details from a scientific page, not a forum or newspaper.
Is that so hard to do ?
I wonder why. Is it your fault that you can't understand this simple question or you just can't find any page presenting such an idea and are hiding behind all those quotes.
It's funny how you keep going back to evolution while you're not keeping the same standards on comparing it with AGW.
I do keep the same standards.
Evolution and AGW are both fully supported by the scientific community with mountains of peer-reviewed research.
Same goes for every other scientific issue I accept.
The examples you gave are not testing the influence of man on climate and are ideas that could be very easily tested...
I don't understand you.
Science can tell us about the carbon in the air and where it comes from.
A discovery that shows that the calculations made are wrong would falsify AGW.
Why do you refuse to accept this?
...you still have no idea what falsifiability means and refuse to try to understand it.
You make no sense.
The way you falsify AGW is the same way you falsify any other theory.
...you can't present any way to falsify AGW.
Well, certainly not according to your personal satisfaction.
You just keep saying "Nuh Uh" to everything proposed.
(Even though they come from the very people that completely reject AGW themselves.)
I have no idea why you do this because you refuse to explain your belief that AGW is unfalsifiable in any detail.
I'm not a climatologist.
Any fault that I personally may or may not have in explaining AGW to you could simply be because I don't know enough about it.
Yet that does not mean that there is no way to falsify AGW itself.
You said...Can you name one way to falsify AWG?
Well, I gave it a shot.
You just did your "Nuh Uh" routine.
Not much I can do about that.
Later I mentioned going to science sources (such as talkorigins) for your scientific understanding of Evolution.
You asked me if I could do the same with AGW.
So I said "Yes" and gave the link to NASA.
NASA is about as scientific as it gets.
Relying upon them for information on AGW is a good and reasonable idea.
There's nothing religious about it.
Instead you continue to copy/paste text and repeating like a child "yes, it is falsifiable" or "scientists know better" or "you're just like an evolution denier" ...
1)Well, yes I do think that AGW is falsifiable. I have no idea why you don't think it is.
2) Yes again.
Scientists DO know better.
That's what they're paid for.
They do the training.
They do the active research.
The have to jump through the hoops and publish in peer-reviewed journals under intense scrutiny.
It would be strange if scientists didn't know better.
The reason why we go to scientists for science is the same reason we go to dentists to get our teeth fixed.
3) Yes again.
Dismissing a mainstream scientific theory by declaring it unfalsifiable without being able to back it up makes you sound exactly like a evolution denier.
Word for word.
It makes you sound like an HIV denier too.
"As applied, the HIV theory is
unfalsifiable, and useless as a medical hypothesis… I can’t find a single virologist who will give me references which show HIV is the probable cause of AIDS. If you ask…you don’t get an answer, you get fury.”
The answer should be very easy to post: a short description with a link for more details from a scientific page, not a forum or newspaper.
Huh?
This is the first time you have asked for such a thing.
Why is this critical?
If such a thing is produced, what will honestly it mean to you?
You can always say "Nuh Uh" again and accuse me of cutting and pasting again.
Are you asking for a peer-reviewed paper that pedantically explains how AGW is really and truely falisfiable because I doubt that such a thing would be likely to exist.
Nor indeed would I expect one regarding Germ Theory or or the Theory of Gravity or anything else.
I do keep the same standards.
No you don't. You can't present any way to falsify AGW, while I already presented more then one for evolution.
I don't understand you.
That's obvious. Yet the question is very simple.
You just keep saying "Nuh Uh" to everything proposed.
That's a plain lie. I explained why I didn't accepted your ideas on what will falsify AGW.
Dismissing a mainstream scientific theory by declaring it unfalsifiable without being able to back it up makes you sound exactly like a evolution denier.
I can dismiss any stupid idea saying it's not science because it's not falsifiable. You're the one needing to prove it is, because you're making the claim. I don't have to put anything in it's place. I can just say I don't know. It's OK, you know? You don't have to know everything.
This is the first time you have asked for such a thing.
Actually this was the question from the beginning. You just refused to do it.
Why is this critical?
You still don't get why falsifiability is such an important aspect of a scientific theory? I'm not surprised.
If such a thing is produced, what will honestly it mean to you?
You'll have a scientific theory, not a religion.
You can always say "Nuh Uh" again and accuse me of cutting and pasting again.
I am able to admit when I am wrong.
I didn't just said "Nuh Uh" as you claim. I tried to explain why, but seams you only accept ideas from authority and are unable to judge for yourself.
Are you asking for a peer-reviewed paper that pedantically explains how AGW is really and truely falisfiable because I doubt that such a thing would be likely to exist.
Exactly what I said all along.
Then how can you call this science?
Nor indeed would I expect one regarding Germ Theory or or the Theory of Gravity or anything else.
I'm sure you will not expect such a thing from wizards, coffee been readers, astrology, homeopathy or any other crap people invented and claim is science.
Guess what? IT IS NOT.
No you don't.
Yes, I do.
This is not hard to understand.
Peer-reviewed research.
Every single position that I accept on scientific issues is back up by lots and lots of peer-reviewed research.
You can't present any way to falsify AGW...
I presented several.
You keep going "Nuh Uh".
None of the ones I presented were my own ideas.
That's a plain lie. I explained why I didn't accepted your ideas on what will falsify AGW.
You explained nothing.
E.g.
This is a known fact ( that CO2 traps heat, just to be clear ) and can't be used to falsify a theory.
Ok. Why not?
You still have not explained this one.
The examples you gave are not testing the influence of man on climate and are ideas that could be very easily tested ( they have been tested already ) without determining in any way if the climate change is influenced or not by man.
An empty retort.
You have explained nothing.
There no science here.
Nothing by way of explanation or genuine attempt to engage.
If carbon does not behave the way we think it does, then why would that not falsify AGW?
Why?
Alternatively, if the carbon comes from another, greater, more important source other that industry then why would that not falsify AGW?
Why?
You offer no evidence in support of your beliefs.
You are just saying "Nuh Uh".
State your case.
Why do you believe that AGW is unfalsifiable?
I can dismiss any stupid idea saying it's not science because it's not falsifiable.
The irony.
Listen to yourself!
Establish that something is really and truly not falsifiable before you dismiss it.
Otherwise you still sound and behave exactly like a science denier of the Evolution/HIV fringe.
You're the one needing to prove it is, because you're making the claim.
Science does not deal in "proof".
It deals in evidence.
I've explained this to you before.
I'm not making a claim.
The science of AGW is not my province nor creation.
I'm not a scientist.
You asked me to come up with a way to falsify AGW.
Yet you refuse to accept my answers.
(shrug)
I don't have to put anything in it's place. I can just say I don't know.
You believe that AGW is unfalsifiable.
I don't understand why.
Where are you getting this vapid talking point from?
Did you just make it up yourself or do can you offer a scientific source in support of your contention?
Actually this was the question from the beginning.
Then quote yourself making that specific request.
Give me the quote.
Word for word.
If such a thing is produced, what will honestly it mean to you?
You'll have a scientific theory, not a religion.
That makes no sense.
Why do you require that an anonymous person on the internet show you a peer-reviewed paper that pedantically explains how AGW is really and truely falisfiable before you will accept it as falsifiable?
That's silly.
Are you aware of anything like that existing for any other mainstream scientific theory?
Why single out AGW for special treatment?
Why insist that it must come from some anonymous person on the internet?
I'm sure you will not expect such a thing from wizards, coffee been readers, astrology, homeopathy, blah, blah, blah...
This is a good example of you doing your "Nuh Uh" routine.
Nobody is going to especially prepare a peer-reviewed paper that pedantically explains how "theory X" is really and truely falsifiable just to placate the nutters.
That's not just for AGW.
That goes for anything.
Heliocentric Theory?
Theory of Evolution?
Germ Theory?
Theory of Gravity?
Where's the peer-reviewed papers that pedantically explained to you personally how "theory X" is really and truely falsifiable?
Cite them.
Such things do not exist.
You are being contrary and unreasonable.
@Cedric
Man you are still not getting what falsifiability is. Here is a small definition:
Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment.
So the idea that science does not deal in "proof", but it deals in evidence is stupid. Or maybe you need a definition of "proof". Here it is: Determination of the quality of something by testing it.
So "proof" is an important part of science (falsifiability).
The ideas you presented to falsify AGW are not acceptable because some are not determining the influence of man in the climate change and some are just untestable. Read the damn definition of what falsifiability means.
The idea that I "single out AGW for special treatment" or my so called "doing your "Nuh Uh" routine" is only in your brain.
I presented arguments for my position. The fact that you're incapable of understanding them is your problem.
Regarding your other statement that scientific theories don't require falsifiability I already showed you you're wrong. Repeating something over and over again without stopping to investigate it is stupid and doesn't make it true.
All scientific theories are falsifiable. I'm not going to show you links for each of then. It will be a waste of time anyway, since you aren't remembering I did it for evolution already. And, no, I didn't asked only peer-reviewed papers. Links to scientific sites are enough.
And after all this saying you're not claiming anything is illogical.
When you claim somebody is right in an argument you claim his point of view either you like it or not. So if you say proponents of AGW are right you have to provide the evidence ( if you like this word better then proof ) based on what they make the claim.
I'm just curious, why are you so unwilling to accept AGW has it's problems? What if at one point it will be proven false but it will be to late to try to find a solution for other possible cause of the climate change?
What if there's nothing humans can do about the climate change ( to me it's hilarious that you think humans have this power anyway ) and instead of investing resources where it matters, this ( limited ) resources are wasted on imaginary problems ?
There are already a lot of resources wasted on religions, why waste some more without any scientific base?
And stop saying AGW has any. It's started from some scientific facts combined with a lot of statistical information and an hypothesis was generated. This can't be falsified and is addressing a system hardly understood ( climate of the Earth ).
If you accept this hypothesis why not accept astrology? It also starts from some scientific facts ( solar system ) and could be "confirmed" ( notice the quotes ) using some statistical data normalized with the way zodiac presents each sign.
Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that (...) So the idea that science does not deal in "proof", but it deals in evidence is stupid.
Non sequitur.
Observations and physical experiments can indeed falsify an assertion. Yet science does not deal in proof.
Why don't you know this?
So "proof" is an important part of science (falsifiability).
Again, science does not deal in proof.
"What is meant by scientific evidence and scientific proof? In truth, science can never establish 'truth' or 'fact' in the sense..."
The ideas you presented to falsify AGW are not acceptable because some are not determining the influence of man in the climate change and some are just untestable.
How so? Making an empty assertion and then hoping that people just take your word for it is bad form.
Regarding your other statement that scientific theories don't require falsifiability...
English literacy fail.
Quote me where I actually said this.
Stop making things up.
All scientific theories are falsifiable.
(facepalm)
Yes, I know.
Mainstream scientific theories are ALWAYS falsifiable.
People would notice otherwise.
That's why your belief that AGW is somehow mysteriously unfalsifiable is just plain odd.
And, no, I didn't asked only peer-reviewed papers. Links to scientific sites are enough.
That's not what you said before...
"CK: Are you asking for a peer-reviewed paper that pedantically explains how AGW is really and truely falisfiable because I doubt that such a thing would be likely to exist.
Anon: Exactly what I said all along.
CK: That's silly.
Are you aware of anything like that existing for any other mainstream scientific theory?
(...awkward silence...)
Anon: And, no, I didn't asked only peer-reviewed papers. Links to scientific sites are enough."
Hmm.
So if you say proponents of AGW are right you have to provide the evidence ( if you like this word better then proof ) based on what they make the claim.
It's not me that likes this word better; it's the scientific community.
Evidence for AGW that is the basis of their claim?
No problemo.
I'm just curious, why are you so unwilling to accept AGW has it's problems?
Theories have problems all the time. I accept AGW (warts and all) just as I accept any other mainstream scientific theory (warts and all).
What if at one point it will be proven false...
What if it isn't?
(shrug)
What if there's nothing humans can do...
What if there is something we can do?
(shrug)
There are already a lot of resources wasted on religions, why waste some more without any scientific base?
Sounds like a good reason to reject religion. You have my vote.
Now demonstrate that the physical sciences that fully support AGW are really just religious and not science at all. Easy.
This can't be falsified and is addressing a system hardly understood...
Says who? Where are you getting this nonsense from?
Cite your sources.
If you accept this hypothesis why not accept astrology?
My standards for accepting a scientific theory are EXACTLY the same as they are for accepting the theory of Evolution.
They allow me to reject astrology yet allow me to accept the science behind vaccines.
They allow me to laugh in the face of HIV deniers, yet allow me to accept Germ Theory.
Same diff' with AGW.
You are interested in sorting out real science from pseudoscience?
Good.
Tell me how you do it.
Let's compare notes. I'll listen.
The ideas you presented to falsify AGW are not acceptable because some are not determining the influence of man in the climate change and some are just untestable.
How so? Making an empty assertion and then hoping that people just take your word for it is bad form.
Show me how "If carbon does not behave the way we think it does, then why would that not falsify AGW?" is determining the influence of man over climate change. I agree that "Making an empty assertion and then hoping that people just take your word for it is bad form." Only that you're the one making this assertion.
I accept AGW (warts and all) just as I accept any other mainstream scientific theory (warts and all).
Except that you can't present any way to falsify it. You just repeat that has to be falsifiable because somebody you think it's an authority on the matter accepts it.
I told you why I don't accept your ways to falsify it. Now explain how is that testing the influence of man and how can you test the ideas presented. Shouldn't be so hard.
Says who? Where are you getting this nonsense from?
Cite your sources.
You still don't get it that you have to show how it is falsifiable?
I don't see you asking somebody to show how astrology is unfalsifiable. It's an illogical request any way. You ( or the proponents of that idea ) have to show it is falsifiable and not somebody else that is unfalsifiable.
You are interested in sorting out real science from pseudoscience?
Good.
Tell me how you do it.
Let's compare notes. I'll listen.
The discussion is about AGW.
I want to know how are you differentiate it from religion, except using a call to authority when asked for it's falsifiability.
Can you do that or not?
Show me how "If carbon does not behave the way we think it does, then why would that not falsify AGW?" is determining the influence of man over climate change.
Think about it.
Human industry produces carbon.
Right?
We are adding to the mix in the atmosphere.
Right?
It's like a gigantic chemical experiment.
Yet if carbon does not behave the way we think it does then...it doesn't matter about all that carbon we make.
Human industry is off the hook.
Carbon rise in the atmosphere is irrelevent.
AGW is debunked.
Option Two:
Carbon does work the way we think it does.
BUT(!!!) the carbon is not coming from us.
Well, we produce such a small amount that it's not enough to matter.
Heck, volcanos produce a zillion times more then human industry does.
What are you going to do? Tax volcanoes? (Har har.)
AGW is debunked.
Or...
Solar forcing or cloud cover theory could make a comeback or some totally different theory could superceed AGW.
This is routine stuff.
Except that you can't present any way to falsify it.
Well, not according to your personal satisfaction.
(shrug)
I personally might not know about how to falsify any one particular theory that's out there and in the mainstream (Evolution/Germ Theory/ Atomic Theory etc.)...but that's ok.
Nobody expects me to.
It's not my field of specialization.
I cheerfully admit to not being a climatologist.
You just repeat that has to be falsifiable because somebody you think it's an authority on the matter accepts it.
Nope, there is no "somebody".
We talking about all the scientists on the planet.
If all the scientists on the planet are saying the same thing...then I will listen.
Guilty as charged.
They know more about it than I do.
That's their job.
They do the science. They produce the peer-reviewed research.
Listening to them is a good idea.
It's normal. It's sane.
You yourself said...
All scientific theories are falsifiable.
AGW is a mainstream scientific theory.
Nobody, apart from you, seems to have noticed that AGW is shockingly unfalsifiable.
Scientific theories are always falsifiable. That's just the way it works. Really hard to pass off an unfalsifiable scientific theory on to the global scientific community without anybody noticing at all.
Scientists really and truly know that all scientific theories must be falsifiable.
They don't need anonymous people on the internet to remind them of this.
If the global scientific community isn't raising a big stink about about "theory x" being unfalisifiable then it's reasonable to assume that "theory x" is falsifiable.
If even the bitterest critics of "theory X" who openly reject it are not making such a claim then it's reasonable to assume that it's falsifiable.
If the critics of "theory x" try to falsify the theory by challanging the data that supports it or offering alternative theories then...that's a ringing endorsement that the theory they are challanging really is falsifiable.
I have no good reason to suspect that AGW is secretly unfalsifiable.
No scientific community anywhere is pushing the panic button on this.
Not even the tiny handful of scientists who stubbornly reject AGW are pushing the panic button on this.
All scientific theories are falsifiable.
I told you why I don't accept your ways to falsify it.
Nope, you said nothing except "Nuh Uh".
The ideas you presented to falsify AGW are not acceptable because some are not determining the influence of man in the climate change and some are just untestable.
Pure handwaving.
No supporting evidence whatsoever.
You don't even bother to identify which "some" are "not determining the influence of man" and which "some" are "untestable".
You have nothing except unfounded paranoia.
You have no science in support of your beliefs.
@Cedric
As I said, if you can present a page where ways to falsify AGW are presented I'll happily admit I was wrong.
I couldn't find any and the ways you presented are either not testable or are not determining the influence of man over climate change.
I have two problems with your idea of changing the way carbon is thought to behave : the carbon is not the only result of the industry that is considered "guilty" of producing GW and nobody can't ( yet ) replicate the way it is influencing the atmosphere in a lab, because the climate system is not fully understood.
Almost the same problems with the idea that something else is generating the carbon and not humans.
You don't even bother to identify which "some" are "not determining the influence of man" and which "some" are "untestable".
Didn't thought I need to. Is that so complicated to identify ?
We talking about all the scientists on the planet.
If all the scientists on the planet are saying the same thing...then I will listen.
Well, not ALL the scientists are sustaining AGW and even if they were asking questions about their position is part of the scientific method. Don't understand why is that bothering you so much.
This question about falsifiability of AGW is an important one and the fact that on all those pages you quoted nobody is presenting at least one way to do it, but everybody ( on your side ) is screaming that because some scientists are accepting the idea then it has to be one is very strange to me.
Here is what I found on my last search for falsifiability of AGW on Google:
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Falling_Ocean_Heat.pdf
So there are people ( can't call this person a scientist ) that say they identified ways to falsify AGW. The problem I have with this is the author. He seams to be everything else except a scientist.
Now you can continue your illogical call to authority or try to find an accepted way to falsify AGW.
It's not just me that is raising this question as you try to suggest, but it's a question presented by many and in many paces on Internet ( including on this article that you continue to comment although seams you don't really know what is about ) without any clear answer.
As I said, if you can present a page where ways to falsify AGW are presented I'll happily admit I was wrong.
That makes no sense.
Even if I did present such a page, that's not a good reason to just roll over and admit you were wrong.
:(
Why would "your" acceptance of the falsifiabilty of a scientific theory rely upon "me"?
I'm nobody.
I'm just some anonymous guy on the Internet.
Further, why does there necessarily have to be "a page" that spells out the falsification of a scientific theory before everything is all hunky-dory?
That's just an arbitrary expectation.
I have two problems with your idea of changing the way carbon is thought to behave : the carbon is not the only result of the industry that is considered "guilty" of producing GW and nobody can't ( yet ) replicate the way it is influencing the atmosphere in a lab, because the climate system is not fully understood.
What?
Whoa up there!
Break that down, step-by-step.
Nice and easy and logical-like.
No short-cuts.
This is the important stuff.
"...the carbon is not the only result of the industry that is considered "guilty" of producing GW..."
Umm...So?
(...awkward silence...)
How does that make AGW unfalsifiable?
...nobody can't ( yet ) replicate the way it is influencing the atmosphere in a lab...
Two problems here.
Who is saying this?
And why does there even need to be a lab test?
...because the climate system is not fully understood...
Non sequitur.
Almost the same problems with the idea that something else is generating the carbon and not humans.
You've lost me. I'm being completely honest with you. I have no idea what you are talking about.
Why would data on volcanos( for example) not falsify AGW?
I have no idea how you get "from here to there".
Spell it out in a careful and reasonable manner.
Explain your thinking.
Well, not ALL the scientists are sustaining AGW...
If AGW was not falsifiable, the scientific community would notice.
There's no getting around that.
You can't keep a gigantic thing like that a secret.
That's insane.
...the fact that on all those pages you quoted nobody is presenting at least one way to do it...
Who says so?
You?
Where are you getting this nonsense from?
Cite. Your. Sources.
So there are people ( can't call this person a scientist ) that say they identified ways to falsify AGW.
Maybe they have or maybe they are lying to you...or maybe they don't know what they are talking about.
Welcome to the Internet.
(shrug)
...find an accepted way to falsify AGW.
It's not just me that is raising this question as you try to suggest, but it's a question presented by many and in many paces on Internet...
Yes, I have no doubt that "it's a question" raised by "many"....on the "Internet".
Many things are raised on the "Internet".
"Many" people out there just asking "questions".
I have higher standards.
Not all sources of information are equal.
I get my science only from science sources.
There is no substitute.
No newspapers, no obscure blogs, no talking head on TV, no mysterious "Institutes".
I only ever get my science from the people that do the work.
Peer-reviewed scientific work.
(I get my medical information the same way).
Even if I did present such a page, that's not a good reason to just roll over and admit you were wrong.
Illogical. I already presented one myself and told you I don't accept it. I specifically asked for one accepted as scientific.
I'm just some anonymous guy on the Internet.
Why are keep repeating this ? Why are you ignoring the fact that I've asked for an acceptable scientific source. Is that so hard to understand ?
Umm...So?
(...awkward silence...)
How does that make AGW unfalsifiable?
That is not making AGW unfalsifiable. It's just making your idea of how to falsify it not applicable.
Carbon not being the only agent influencing AGW modifying the way it is considered to act will not falsify AGW.
Who is saying this?
The fact that the model used to predict climate change is continually changed.
And why does there even need to be a lab test?
The fact that you can't make all humans disappear from the face of the Earth or make the tests on another planet.
If AGW was not falsifiable, the scientific community would notice.
There's no getting around that.
You can't keep a gigantic thing like that a secret.
That's insane.
OK. Prove it. That's the only thing I'm saying. Why is that so hard to do? But you prefer to keep repeating this call to authority. Illogical.
Yes, I have no doubt that "it's a question" raised by "many"....on the "Internet".
And AGW can be placed in the same category. Unscientific ideas religiously sustained.
I only ever get my science from the people that do the work.
Peer-reviewed scientific work.
That's good. very good.
Same here.
Now can you answer the simple question posted from the start or not? And stop thinking I'm asking this question to you personally. I've searched for it ( already showed you some pages I've found ) and couldn't find any acceptable source for it.
You chose to believe the persons sustaining AGW, I can't. Simple.
Repeating something that could be found on all pages where this question is discussed is not helping.
You are not getting this:
If carbon does not behave the way we think it does then...it doesn't matter about all that carbon we make.
Human industry is off the hook.
Carbon rise in the atmosphere is irrelevent.
AGW is debunked.
To which you replied...
Carbon not being the only agent influencing AGW modifying the way it is considered to act will not falsify AGW.
This does not make sense.
AGW is based around our understanding of carbon.
Where carbon comes from?
How does it work in the atmosphere?
How much is there?
Sure, there are other man-made greenhouse gases but...C02 is considered to be the main culprit.
All you are doing is blithely exchanging one man-made greenhouse gas for another. In effect, you are just switching labels around.
There are several problems here:
The first one is that while it's a possibility that there could be another man-made greenhouse gas that is the real culprit, there is no guarantee that it would work out that way.
It is entirely reasonable that science could eliminate Co2 as the main culprit of global warming...WITHOUT there being a convenient other man-made gas to neatly replace it.
Nor does your scenario consider the possibility that the new greenhouse gas discovered is not created by man.
Nor does your scenario consider the possibility that scientists discover that greenhouse gasses are not the real problem at all but something else.
(Solar forcing, water vapour, cloud cover, cosmic radiation etc)
You're not making any sense.
The first one is that while it's a possibility that there could be another man-made greenhouse gas that is the real culprit, there is no guarantee that it would work out that way.
If that possibility exists your way to falsify AGW is not usable. And that is exactly what I was saying.
It is entirely reasonable that science could eliminate Co2 as the main culprit of global warming...WITHOUT there being a convenient other man-made gas to neatly replace it.
I don't want to replace CO2 with something else. I'm just telling you carbon is not only agent considered to influence climate change. Again, this means that your way of falsifying AGW is not usable.
Nor does your scenario ...
What scenario ? I didn't presented any scenario. I only said that AGW is taken way to serious without any scientific base and other possibilities are ignored.
I didn't named any such possibility. You did.
I only asked for at least one way to falsify it. And as I said, this is a legitimate question and it shouldn't bother you so much if you are so sure there are scientific answers to it.
More then that, it should be very easy to answer to it.
If that possibility exists your way to falsify AGW is not usable. And that is exactly what I was saying.
All science is tentative.
It changes.
It's not an orthodoxy.
Science works differently from religion.
New evidence is discovered.
The old is thrown out and is replaced with the new.
If the scientific understanding of Co2 changes then then a theory that is based upon our understanding of Co2 will also change.
That's inescapable.
I'm just telling you carbon is not only agent considered to influence climate change.
Yeah, but scientists already know that. There's lots of stuff that "influences climate change".
That's not exactly news.
Again, this means that your way of falsifying AGW is not usable.
(...awkward silence...)
Wow.
No really.
Wow!
This is how you figure that AGW is "unfalsifiable"?
That's it?
(...More awkward silence...)
Hmm. You need to think about this more.
Nor does your scenario ...
What scenario ? I didn't presented any scenario.
Yes you did.
If scientists discover that carbon doesn't work the way we currently think it does then...(according to your idea) that means that some other man-made greenhouse gas could just come along and neatly replace it.
So...therefore...AGW...is...unfalsifiable.
(...more awkward silence...)
Wow.
Does this really make sense to you or are you just playing games?
Have you talked to anybody else about this because as ideas go...this is certainly "original".
Let's try this one more time.
Step One: Science's current understanding of how Co2 works is overturned.
Step Two: AGW (being based on said understanding) collapses right along with it.
Step Three: Nothing much else happens. AGW is still in the doghouse.
(...Time passes...)
Step Four: AGW is STILL in the doghouse.
Step Five: Some other scientist discovers that man-made greenhouse gas "X" is the real culprit.
AGW is back on the table; suitably modified.
All science is tentative.
We work with the information we currently have at the time.
All things are "possible" but science gets on with the job in the meantime.
If the "possible" materializes into reality, then science will deal with it in stride.
If some other discovery reactivates AGW then, fine, but if it doesn't then it's just too bad for AGW theory.
(shrug).
You need to talk to somebody face-to-face about how you have shown that AGW is really and truly falsifiable. Maybe they can explain it to you better.
Go to your local university.
It does't matter which one.
Speak to ANYBODY in the science faculty. Anybody at all.
(Just make sure they are not drinking coffee when you tell them your reasoning.)
Oh, and one other thing!
Did you honestly come up with this by yourself or did you get it from some blog somewhere? If you got it from some blog then please, please, please give the link.
@Cedric
As I said, read the damn definition of falsifiability. This crap that you keep repeating here is embarrassingly stupid.
You already admitted you don't have any idea about AGW ( and proved you can't understand the term falsifiability ) but are insisting I'm the one not understanding why your ideas are correct.
This is how you figure that AGW is "unfalsifiable"?
Can you make more illogical statements then this ? I already told you I searched for ways to do it. My answer was just a reply to the way you think it can be done. The fact that you didn't get that and keep modify the things I say to let you keep your religion makes me understand your idea of what science is.
Yes you did.
If scientists discover that carbon doesn't work the way we currently think it does then...(according to your idea) that means that some other man-made greenhouse gas could just come along and neatly replace it.
This is a plain lie or you don't understand English. Read the comments again.
Did you honestly come up with this by yourself or did you get it from some blog somewhere? If you got it from some blog then please, please, please give the link.
Do you even read the article you're commenting on? Or do you think I was the one who wrote it ?
I already told you I'm not the only one asking for a way to falsify AGW but you either have a very short memory or you're so religious about it that you think I'm the only person on the world that wrote all the pages on the Internet that ask this question.
You already admitted you don't have any idea about AGW...
Yep. I agree with you.
I'm not a climatologist.
:)
...but are insisting I'm the one not understanding why your ideas are correct.
Yep. You don't seem to get it at all. Doesn't take a climatologist to figure that part out.
:)
My answer was just a reply to the way you think it can be done.
Yeah. As replies go, it blows chunks.
The fact that you didn't get that and keep modify the things I say...
Nope.
That won't do.
I'm always happy to quote you.
I quote you all the time.
I said...
"If carbon does not behave the way we think it does then...it doesn't matter about all that carbon we make.
Human industry is off the hook.
Carbon rise in the atmosphere is irrelevent.
AGW is debunked."
(This is me making a reasonable attempt as a non-scientist how AGW could be debunked)
To which you replied...
"Carbon not being the only agent influencing AGW modifying the way it is considered to act will not falsify AGW."
(This is you going "Nu Uh" and not saying anything very useful.)
Later, you then went on to "Nu Uh" further and...
If that possibility exists your way to falsify AGW is not usable. And that is exactly what I was saying.
and...
I'm just telling you carbon is not only agent considered to influence climate change. Again, this means that your way of falsifying AGW is not usable.
My proposal (modest though it is) was to demonstrate how AGW could be indeed falsified.
My answer was just a reply to the way you think it can be done.
Your answer is useless.
There's nothing there that demonstrates that AGW is not really falsifiable.
There's no science.
I keep asking you where you get this silliness from and you remain eternally shy about your sources.
Odd really.
Really odd.
Do you even read the article you're commenting on? Or do you think I was the one who wrote it?
So, the source of your brainwave that "AGW is really unfalsifiable" and that "if science's current understanding of Co2 was overturned that wouldn't falsify AGW 'cause there's other gases out there!" is all from...this blog?
Wow.
That's your source of science information?
Wow.
I already told you I'm not the only one asking for a way to falsify AGW...
Yeah, but who?
Name some names.
Link some links.
Be a devil.
Where does a special guy like you get these wonderous revelations that AGW is unfalsifiable?
(Hint:Conserv@pedia?)
...you think I'm the only person on the world that wrote all the pages on the Internet that ask this question.
Ah, yes. The "Internet".
This is where you choose to get your information on the most shocking scientific scandal of our times.
The mysterious "internet".
I don't.
I prefer NASA.
:)
@Cedric
Yep. You don't seem to get it at all. Doesn't take a climatologist to figure that part out.
It doesn't take a scientist to understand falsifiability. But your religion doesn't allow you to make the least effort.
My proposal (modest though it is) was to demonstrate how AGW could be indeed falsified.
So you still can't make a difference between falsifying the influence of carbon and falsifying AGW. Your problem.
Your answer is useless.
There's nothing there that demonstrates that AGW is not really falsifiable.
There's no science.
Again with this stupid argument.
In order to be science the people proposing AGW have to provide ways to falsify it. Not the other way around.
I keep asking you where you get this silliness from and you remain eternally shy about your sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
I already gave you this link. Is it so hard for you to understand it ?
Yeah, but who?
Name some names.
Link some links.
Be a devil.
Science has to be falsifiable by definition. Don't have to give you any names for this.
Only you are making calls to authority without understanding what you're saying.
Ah, yes. The "Internet".
This is where you choose to get your information on the most shocking scientific scandal of our times.
The mysterious "internet".
Come on, why are you insisting on making such a foul of yourself ?
Already told you how I select the sources for scientific information.
I don't.
I prefer NASA.
:)
Then show me a page on which they are explaining how AGW is falsifiable. Can you ? :)
But you don't get "scientific information" from NASA, but "religious texts". You can't think for yourself, so you chose to believe everything somebody is saying. As I already said, I can't.
Prove me wrong and I'll be happy to admit it. Until then your religion is useless to me.
I think we now have proof that AGW is indeed falsifiable.
If it ever stops being hot or cold, AGW is TOTALLY discredited.
Post a Comment