tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8771666371746650057.post3283413523113853782..comments2023-11-03T05:34:26.880-05:00Comments on The Whited Sepulchre: Is man-made Global Warming falsifiable ?The Whited Sepulchrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17657366124122012622noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8771666371746650057.post-48847787542538204952013-05-15T15:09:38.467-05:002013-05-15T15:09:38.467-05:00I think we now have proof that AGW is indeed falsi...I think we now have proof that AGW is indeed falsifiable. <br />If it ever stops being hot or cold, AGW is TOTALLY discredited. <br />The Whited Sepulchrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17657366124122012622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8771666371746650057.post-63056329108289508632010-07-30T00:21:24.438-05:002010-07-30T00:21:24.438-05:00@Cedric
Yep. You don't seem to get it at all. ...@Cedric<br /><i>Yep. You don't seem to get it at all. Doesn't take a climatologist to figure that part out.</i><br />It doesn't take a scientist to understand falsifiability. But your religion doesn't allow you to make the least effort.<br /><br /><i>My proposal (modest though it is) was to demonstrate how AGW could be indeed falsified.</i><br />So you still can't make a Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8771666371746650057.post-33029824008541930302010-07-27T23:03:00.921-05:002010-07-27T23:03:00.921-05:00You already admitted you don't have any idea a...<i>You already admitted you don't have any idea about AGW...</i><br /><br />Yep. I agree with you.<br />I'm not a climatologist.<br />:)<br /><br /><i>...but are insisting I'm the one not understanding why your ideas are correct.</i><br /><br />Yep. You don't seem to get it at all. Doesn't take a climatologist to figure that part out.<br />:)<br /><br /><i>My answer was justCedric Katesbyhttp://www.randi.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8771666371746650057.post-89553938543556747772010-07-27T01:08:07.993-05:002010-07-27T01:08:07.993-05:00@Cedric
As I said, read the damn definition of fa...@Cedric<br /><br />As I said, read the damn definition of falsifiability. This crap that you keep repeating here is embarrassingly stupid.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>This is how you figure that AGW Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8771666371746650057.post-83974415413354078642010-07-26T21:32:18.291-05:002010-07-26T21:32:18.291-05:00If that possibility exists your way to falsify AGW...<i>If that possibility exists your way to falsify AGW is not usable. And that is exactly what I was saying.</i><br /><br />All science is tentative.<br />It changes.<br />It's not an orthodoxy.<br />Science works differently from religion.<br /><br />New evidence is discovered.<br />The old is thrown out and is replaced with the new.<br /><br />If the scientific understanding of Co2 changes Cedric Katesbyhttp://www.randi.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8771666371746650057.post-32424861261469047442010-07-26T00:43:46.086-05:002010-07-26T00:43:46.086-05:00You're not making any sense.
The first one is...You're not making any sense.<br /><br /><i>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.</i><br />If that possibility exists your way to falsify AGW is not usable. And that is exactly what I was saying.<br /><br /><i>It is entirely reasonable that science Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8771666371746650057.post-16838407241518984152010-07-23T23:04:46.305-05:002010-07-23T23:04:46.305-05:00You are not getting this:
If carbon does not beha...You are not getting this:<br /><br /><i>If carbon does not behave the way we think it does then...it doesn't matter about all that carbon we make.<br />Human industry is off the hook.<br />Carbon rise in the atmosphere is irrelevent.<br />AGW is debunked.</i><br /><br />To which you replied...<br /><br /><i>Carbon not being the only agent influencing AGW modifying the way it is considered to Cedric Katesbyhttp://www.randi.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8771666371746650057.post-33750870379688052872010-07-23T00:26:53.136-05:002010-07-23T00:26:53.136-05:00Even if I did present such a page, that's not ...<i>Even if I did present such a page, that's not a good reason to just roll over and admit you were wrong.</i><br />Illogical. I already presented one myself and told you I don't accept it. I specifically asked for one accepted as scientific.<br /><br /><i>I'm just some anonymous guy on the Internet.</i><br />Why are keep repeating this ? Why are you ignoring the fact that I've Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8771666371746650057.post-10742070096107445032010-07-21T23:39:57.039-05:002010-07-21T23:39:57.039-05:00As I said, if you can present a page where ways to...<i>As I said, if you can present a page where ways to falsify AGW are presented I'll happily admit I was wrong.</i><br /><br />That makes no sense.<br />Even if I did present such a page, that's not a good reason to just roll over and admit you were wrong.<br />:(<br />Why would "your" acceptance of the falsifiabilty of a scientific theory rely upon "me"?<br />I'm Cedric Katesbyhttp://www.randi.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8771666371746650057.post-60705711605381332632010-07-21T01:20:44.782-05:002010-07-21T01:20:44.782-05:00@Cedric
As I said, if you can present a page wher...@Cedric<br /><br />As I said, if you can present a page where ways to falsify AGW are presented I'll happily admit I was wrong.<br /><br />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. <br />I have two problems with your idea of changing the way carbon is thought to behave : the carbon is not the Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8771666371746650057.post-86493198865085236732010-07-17T16:37:36.081-05:002010-07-17T16:37:36.081-05:00Show me how "If carbon does not behave the wa...<i>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><br /><br />Think about it.<br />Human industry produces carbon.<br />Right?<br />We are adding to the mix in the atmosphere.<br />Right?<br />It's like a gigantic chemical experiment.<br />Yet if carbon does not behaveCedric Katesbyhttp://www.randi.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8771666371746650057.post-39424619299951432722010-07-15T23:57:11.913-05:002010-07-15T23:57:11.913-05:00The ideas you presented to falsify AGW are not acc...<i>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.<br /><br />How so? Making an empty assertion and then hoping that people just take your word for it is bad form.</i><br /><br />Show me how "If carbon does not behave the way we think it does, then why would that not falsify Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8771666371746650057.post-51912742195176440942010-07-14T20:16:56.134-05:002010-07-14T20:16:56.134-05:00Falsifiability or refutability is the logical poss...<i>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.</i><br /><br />Non sequitur.<br />Observations and physical experiments can indeed falsify an assertion. <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html" rel="nofollow">Yet science does not deal in proof.</a><br /Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8771666371746650057.post-14961941555309951282010-07-14T02:43:17.289-05:002010-07-14T02:43:17.289-05:00@Cedric
Man you are still not getting what falsif...@Cedric<br /><br />Man you are still not getting what falsifiability is. Here is a small definition:<br />Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment.<br /><br />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&Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8771666371746650057.post-36920682946842622522010-07-11T10:09:12.609-05:002010-07-11T10:09:12.609-05:00No you don't.
Yes, I do.
This is not hard to ...<i>No you don't.</i><br /><br />Yes, I do.<br />This is not hard to understand.<br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ng1AaHBVSk" rel="nofollow">Peer-reviewed research.</a><br />Every single position that I accept on scientific issues is back up by lots and lots of peer-reviewed research.<br /><br /><i>You can't present any way to falsify AGW...</i><br /><br />I presented several.Cedric Katesbyhttp://www.randi.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8771666371746650057.post-4291830885090012902010-07-11T04:35:40.099-05:002010-07-11T04:35:40.099-05:00I do keep the same standards.
No you don't. Yo...<i>I do keep the same standards.</i><br />No you don't. You can't present any way to falsify AGW, while I already presented more then one for evolution.<br /><br /><i>I don't understand you.</i><br />That's obvious. Yet the question is very simple.<br /><br /><i>You just keep saying "Nuh Uh" to everything proposed.</i><br />That's a plain lie. I explained why I didn&Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8771666371746650057.post-88666078356482433172010-07-10T18:31:35.100-05:002010-07-10T18:31:35.100-05:00It's funny how you keep going back to evolutio...<i>It's funny how you keep going back to evolution while you're not keeping the same standards on comparing it with AGW.</i><br /><br />I do keep the same standards.<br />Evolution and AGW are both fully supported by the scientific community with mountains of peer-reviewed research.<br />Same goes for every other scientific issue I accept.<br /><br /><i>The examples you gave are not Cedric Katesbyhttp://www.randi.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8771666371746650057.post-17833847988086687202010-07-10T00:06:37.140-05:002010-07-10T00:06:37.140-05:00It's funny how you keep going back to evolutio...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?<br /><br />It's also funny how you post links explaining why falsifiability is important and what it means but you still have no idea what Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8771666371746650057.post-76763892084178172432010-07-08T14:19:31.705-05:002010-07-08T14:19:31.705-05:00Decided to have some more fun with google-searchin...Decided to have some more fun with google-searching and finding out more about the “agw is unfalsifiable” meme.<br />Who's buying this nonsense?<br />Well, with a different variation, I managed to get a whole 8300 hits.<br />(Ok, so it’s not overwhelming but it’s better than 16.)<br /><br /><a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=global+warming+is+unfalsifiable&hl=en&rlz=Cedric Katesbyhttp://www.randi.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8771666371746650057.post-61368847776527788492010-07-08T13:02:01.566-05:002010-07-08T13:02:01.566-05:00This is a known fact ( that CO2 traps heat, just t...<i>This is a known fact ( that CO2 traps heat, just to be clear ) and can't be used to falsify a theory.</i><br /><br />Ok. Why not?<br /><br /><i>Basic chemistry being overturned showing how oceans are not becoming more acidic.<br />This has nothing to do with falsifying a scientific theory.</i><br /><br />Ok. Why not?<br /><br /><i>So either present how AGW is falsifiable or admit that you Cedric Katesbyhttp://www.randi.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8771666371746650057.post-13809343344224968792010-07-08T01:28:48.939-05:002010-07-08T01:28:48.939-05:00@Cedric
Man no matter how the question is presente...@Cedric<br />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.<br /><br />You have no clue what "falsifiability" is and I suggest you start investigating it before answering like this:<br /><i>Like I explained to you, there is no "one" way.</i><br />That is the most Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8771666371746650057.post-9716266478382699732010-07-06T19:35:07.231-05:002010-07-06T19:35:07.231-05:00I've been banging this drum for years. It is t...<i>I've been banging this drum for years. It is totally unfalsifiable.</i><br /><br />Yes. Those clever tricky scientists. Every single branch of the physical sciences in on the plot.<br />And none broke ranks in all those decades!<br />The fiends.<br />The evilutionists have done the same thing.<br />If only the physicists (for example) of the world would stand up for real science and tellCedric Katesbyhttp://www.randi.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8771666371746650057.post-22273327458532159242010-07-06T18:53:29.222-05:002010-07-06T18:53:29.222-05:00Once again, I didn't counted the questions you...<i>Once again, I didn't counted the questions you got but only named one that you're incapable to answer.</i><br /><br />There were only two.<br />There was no extra one.<br />(shrug)<br /><br /><i>Actually it matters. This will make the difference between believing one so called authority and deciding for yourself.</i><br /><br />Welcome to the wonderful world of the <a href="http://Cedric Katesbyhttp://www.randi.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8771666371746650057.post-43185985832942862602010-07-06T08:02:17.529-05:002010-07-06T08:02:17.529-05:00I've been banging this drum for years. It is t...I've been banging this drum for years. It is totally unfalsifiable. Not how any whether oddity can be laid at the AGW door. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />Hence the retreat of the Goreites to the fortress of "climate chaos" (aka Weather) and the "If we don&#NickMhttp://www.countingcats.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8771666371746650057.post-89657152359701021122010-07-06T01:14:29.941-05:002010-07-06T01:14:29.941-05:00@Cedric
Now you're trying to tell me what I sa...@Cedric<br />Now you're trying to tell me what I said in the first place. Hilarious.<br />Once again, I didn't counted the questions you got but only named one that you're incapable to answer.<br /><br /><i>I'm an anonymous person on the internet.<br />Doesn't matter if I can name or not name a way to falsify AGW.</i><br />Actually it matters. This will make the difference Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com