IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags agw , david evans , DeSmogBlog , global warming , global warming denial , James Hoggan , Michael Tobias

Reply
Old 25th July 2008, 08:02 AM   #41
mhaze
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,718
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
This thread is ridiculous, really - think about it. Some guy that walks out of a really dumb government bureocracy with fat, high paying jobs in Australia. He writes a few articles about it. Newspapers, etc pick it up since it's obviously of public interest. He knows a bit about the subject, has some credentials and makes no exaggerations about what he has done.

Most people would read the newspaper, blog or web article and just lodge a few factoids away from it, read it find it was of no interest and move on, or whatever - read the whole thing, etc. It's just a newspaper article.

Deniers? Oh my, my. They have to jump all over it, gloat about it, start threads on it on boards like this one, post it to existing threads on global warming wherever they can find them *, pretending that it's of enormous significance and "proof" that the previously convinced are abandoning AGW like rats deserting a sinking ship ...

[* http://www.doctorwhoforum.com/showth...186721&page=14

Yes that's a global warming thread on the Doctor Who forum, where the resident denier posted this article even before kallsop posted it here.]
No, Pixel. I assume that most people who have been around for a while know that David Evans has been occasionally popping up for several years. There is not any "new news" here, just a newspaper that picked up his story as a public interest item. By the way your link no worky.

Oh, in any case, if someone did

jump all over it, gloat about it, start threads on it on boards like this one, post it to existing threads on global warming wherever they can find them *, pretending that it's of enormous significance and "proof" that the previously convinced are abandoning AGW like rats deserting a sinking ship ...

That would be as ridiculous as the Warmers doing what I said they are doing, assisted by their Paid PR Men.
mhaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2008, 08:15 AM   #42
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 12,985
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
I assume that most people who have been around for a while know that David Evans has been occasionally popping up for several years. There is not any "new news" here, just a newspaper that picked up his story as a public interest item.
And yet we have this thread, and deniers posting it all over the internet on threads where most people haven't "been around for a while".

Quote:
By the way your link no worky.
Yes it does. Though, now I come to think of it, you might have to register to read it.

Quote:
Oh, in any case, if someone did
If someone did! Have you read this thread title and OP?

If someone did!
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2008, 08:57 AM   #43
TrueSceptic
Master Poster
 
TrueSceptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,143
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
This thread is ridiculous, really - think about it. Some guy that walks out of a really dumb government bureocracy with fat, high paying jobs in Australia. He writes a few articles about it. Newspapers, etc pick it up since it's obviously of public interest. He knows a bit about the subject, has some credentials and makes no exaggerations about what he has done.

Most people would read the newspaper, blog or web article and just lodge a few factoids away from it, read it find it was of no interest and move on, or whatever - read the whole thing, etc. It's just a newspaper article.
Yes, ridiculous.

Most people would not even know about it because it's of zero importance. The Deniosphere, however, picks it up and makes stupid claims about it. kallsop is happy to commit another drive-by and lob the non-story through the window.

The hypocrisy and absence of self-examination of denialists is truly breath-taking.
TrueSceptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2008, 09:10 AM   #44
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,369
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
Which makes perfect sense to me given your viewpoint. But making a big deal of a "newspaper article" is beyond belief...
Beyond belief?

Our skeptical society has had a media action committee for twenty years.

We feel an important role in skepticism is to combat media distortion. Whether it's a press release by a sCAM promoter, or a press release by a AGWDenier, it's all the same to skeptics: bad science that could lead to consequences for readers justifies a response. A response will help educate readers not only in the facts of the case, but possibly inspire them to practice skepticism in future.

I don't see a reason to make a special exception for AGWDeniers.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett

Last edited by blutoski; 25th July 2008 at 09:13 AM.
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2008, 09:26 AM   #45
JoeEllison
Cuddly Like a Koala Bear
 
JoeEllison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,270
Originally Posted by TrueSceptic View Post
Yes, ridiculous.

Most people would not even know about it because it's of zero importance. The Deniosphere, however, picks it up and makes stupid claims about it. kallsop is happy to commit another drive-by and lob the non-story through the window.

The hypocrisy and absence of self-examination of denialists is truly breath-taking.
So, when an AGW denier quotes a newspaper article(or blog, or whatever) that supports their false viewpoint, it is relevant and "proves" their false point. When the article is shown to be misleading or an outright lie, other AGW deniers will attack the reality-based community for "making a big deal" out of it?
JoeEllison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2008, 03:48 PM   #46
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 25,048
Originally Posted by JoeEllison View Post
So, when an AGW denier quotes a newspaper article(or blog, or whatever) that supports their false viewpoint, it is relevant and "proves" their false point. When the article is shown to be misleading or an outright lie, other AGW deniers will attack the reality-based community for "making a big deal" out of it?
Truth to tell, we don't get offered much to gnaw on these days. Nothing substantial, just a thin regurgitated gruel of self-reference.

Now that the hubbub has died down at the climate-crank clubhouse, the echo-chamber effect is coming across very clearly. It happens in the dying phase of any cult (which can have a very long tail, of course).
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2008, 03:53 PM   #47
TrueSceptic
Master Poster
 
TrueSceptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,143
Originally Posted by JoeEllison View Post
So, when an AGW denier quotes a newspaper article(or blog, or whatever) that supports their false viewpoint, it is relevant and "proves" their false point. When the article is shown to be misleading or an outright lie, other AGW deniers will attack the reality-based community for "making a big deal" out of it?
That's it. What still amazes (pun?) is the utter shamelessness of the hypocrisy and dishonesty.
TrueSceptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2008, 03:57 PM   #48
JoeEllison
Cuddly Like a Koala Bear
 
JoeEllison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,270
Originally Posted by CapelDodger View Post
Truth to tell, we don't get offered much to gnaw on these days. Nothing substantial, just a thin regurgitated gruel of self-reference.

Now that the hubbub has died down at the climate-crank clubhouse, the echo-chamber effect is coming across very clearly. It happens in the dying phase of any cult (which can have a very long tail, of course).
Giant, huge, exceedingly stupid tail? Can't we just nip it in the bud?
JoeEllison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2008, 04:00 PM   #49
JoeEllison
Cuddly Like a Koala Bear
 
JoeEllison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,270
Originally Posted by TrueSceptic View Post
That's it. What still amazes (pun?) is the utter shamelessness of the hypocrisy and dishonesty.
Maybe they think we won't notice?!?!?! Or, just as likely, they post to bolster their fellow idiots, as their fellow idiots' posts bolster them.
JoeEllison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2008, 04:11 PM   #50
gdnp
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,998
Originally Posted by TrueSceptic View Post
That's it. What still amazes (pun?) is the utter shamelessness of the hypocrisy and dishonesty.
I think a lot of it is self-delusion. They don't want to change, they don't want to sacrifice, they don't want to destroy the planet, so they convince themselves that global warming is make-believe. There may also be an element of the James Watt attitude: the earth was given to us by God to exploit, and the faster we do the quicker the Rapture.
gdnp is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2008, 05:07 PM   #51
TrueSceptic
Master Poster
 
TrueSceptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,143
Originally Posted by gdnp View Post
I think a lot of it is self-delusion. They don't want to change, they don't want to sacrifice, they don't want to destroy the planet, so they convince themselves that global warming is make-believe. There may also be an element of the James Watt attitude: the earth was given to us by God to exploit, and the faster we do the quicker the Rapture.
That might apply to some, but there are others who know what they are doing. No one can be that delusional and still be so clever in the political/linguistic/debating sense.
TrueSceptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2008, 05:18 PM   #52
JoeEllison
Cuddly Like a Koala Bear
 
JoeEllison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,270
Originally Posted by TrueSceptic View Post
That might apply to some, but there are others who know what they are doing. No one can be that delusional and still be so clever in the political/linguistic/debating sense.
Yeah... the ones in charge know they are lying. That means the sources of the anti-AGW propaganda that the deniers always quote. All of those people are lying, and are conscious that they are lying. They count on the stupidity and delusion of the common deniers to propagate their lies.
JoeEllison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2008, 06:13 PM   #53
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 18,637
I see Dave Evan's occupation to be as relevant as CapelDoger's, or MHaze's. They are all opinion, with snippets of linkage to science.

So, whose satellites show a drop in global temp? Good or bad science?

Six years is a little bit of history, enough to show some trend. 150 years is also history. But millions is too, and over millions of years, it's been hotter. CO2 has been higher. Both without man made causes. And the temp dropped, and the CO2 dropped, also without man's intervention. So I want proof that man has made the temp rise this time. Not models, not consensii. Proof.
__________________
Any sufficiently advanced idea is indistinguishable from idiocy to those who don't actually understanding the concept.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2008, 06:15 PM   #54
JoeEllison
Cuddly Like a Koala Bear
 
JoeEllison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,270
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
So, whose satellites show a drop in global temp? Good or bad science?
Not NASA's. NASA called 2007 the second hottest year on record, and while they expect 2008 to be slightly cooler, they don't consider it to be anything close to the end of the general warming trend.
JoeEllison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2008, 07:00 PM   #55
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 43,039
Originally Posted by JoeEllison View Post
Not NASA's. NASA called 2007 the second hottest year on record, and while they expect 2008 to be slightly cooler, they don't consider it to be anything close to the end of the general warming trend.
When you look at Megalodon's graphs, you can see the temperatures going up in a series of 'steps'. The decadal boundary is arbitrary, but it clearly shows the way the temperature is going up through behind the random fluctuations and weather cycles.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
“Perception is real, but the truth is not.” - Imelda Marcos
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2008, 07:03 PM   #56
JoeEllison
Cuddly Like a Koala Bear
 
JoeEllison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,270
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
When you look at Megalodon's graphs, you can see the temperatures going up in a series of 'steps'. The decadal boundary is arbitrary, but it clearly shows the way the temperature is going up through behind the random fluctuations and weather cycles.
Yes, but... the goofball deniers will claim any month cooler than the same month a year prior to be proof positive that global warming is over... and screw the evidence, and the obvious trends. The "steps" are pretty obvious over the long term, and only the anti-AGW frauds ignore them in favor of tiny slices of the temperature record.
JoeEllison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2008, 07:30 PM   #57
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 24,965
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
So I want proof that man has made the temp rise this time. Not models, not consensii. Proof.
A childish demand reflecting sad lack of understanding of the issue. Why not ask for proof that a 1/8 slice of peach cobbler pie with a .348 oz dollop of french vanilla ice cream on top is the perfect dessert. Not opinion. PROOF.

Both are equally likely.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2008, 07:45 PM   #58
JoeEllison
Cuddly Like a Koala Bear
 
JoeEllison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,270
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
A childish demand reflecting sad lack of understanding of the issue. Why not ask for proof that a 1/8 slice of peach cobbler pie with a .348 oz dollop of french vanilla ice cream on top is the perfect dessert. Not opinion. PROOF.

Both are equally likely.
The same way that I can demand proof that cigarettes cause cancer, and reject any study that includes people who were not isolated by all possible causes for cancer besides cigarettes. Because I'm sure that the scientists can put an infant in a bubble and pump cigarette smoke into that bubble... the same way idiot deniers seem to want us to produce a second Earth where there are no variables except man-made greenhouse gases.
JoeEllison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2008, 08:13 PM   #59
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 18,637
I take those responses as "the AGW theory is non-falsifiable"?
__________________
Any sufficiently advanced idea is indistinguishable from idiocy to those who don't actually understanding the concept.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2008, 08:16 PM   #60
gdnp
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,998
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
When you look at Megalodon's graphs, you can see the temperatures going up in a series of 'steps'. The decadal boundary is arbitrary, but it clearly shows the way the temperature is going up through behind the random fluctuations and weather cycles.
Remember, there are some non-random fluctuations as well. We probably hit the minimum in the current solar cycle in January. Since average global temperature fluctuates with the solar cycle, 2007 should have been a relatively cool year. Therefore, if the NASA data are correct and 2007 was the second hottest on record, then we should expect temperature increases to accelerate over the next 5-6 years as sunspot activity picks up.
gdnp is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2008, 08:33 PM   #61
JoeEllison
Cuddly Like a Koala Bear
 
JoeEllison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,270
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
I take those responses as "the AGW theory is non-falsifiable"?
Why do you make that claim?
JoeEllison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2008, 08:56 PM   #62
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
Originally Posted by CapelDodger View Post
That should definitely be clarified.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an answer...

... but I'll ask anyway: Mhaze, is the title of this thread "fact" or "satire" in your opinion?
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness

Last edited by MattusMaximus; 25th July 2008 at 09:00 PM.
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2008, 09:32 PM   #63
gdnp
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,998
Can someone explain to me what it is supposed to mean when a skeptic claims a scientific theory is non-falsifiable?

I use this argument in discussions about the existence of God. Because the characteristics of (the Christian) God are defined such that no experiment could disprove his existence, I see God theory as non-falsifiable. Attempts to prove his existence through, for example, demonstrating the power of intercessionary prayer have failed, but this does not prove (to the believers) non-existence, since they can always argue that God only answers the prayers he wants to, and we can't know his mind. No possible experiment--no conceivable experiment--could disprove the existence of God to a believer.

What about science? Is AGW warming non-falsifiable because we can't produce a duplicate earth to use as a control? Does that mean we are reduced to guessing, flipping a coin, as to whether global warming is a tempest in a teapot or the greatest threat to the environment this side of an asteroid impact?

AGW theory is fundamentally different than God theory. Even though the "slam dunk" experiment cannot be performed, it can be conceived, and it can be modeled. And the results, unlike debates about the existence of God, hold real consequences.

Do we hold other science to this level of verification? Was the effect of CFCs on atmospheric ozone proven before production was curtailed, for example?

Is there a simple, falsifiable experiment that can prove evolution theory? I don't see one. It just happens to be the theory that best explains biodiversity, the fossil record, DNA homologies between similar organisms, etc.

So whats the deal? If:

1) average global temperatures are rising
2) atmospheric CO2 is rising
3) increased CO2 is secondary to burning of fossil fuels
4) CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas in the laboratory

why is it unscientific to put 1+2+3+4 together and get "AGW" as a plausible answer? If the upward trend in global temperature reverses while CO2 continues to rise, the theory will be invalidated. For those who claim AGW theory is non-falsifiable, what would you propose we do? Fiddle even though Rome may be burning?

Last edited by gdnp; 25th July 2008 at 09:36 PM.
gdnp is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2008, 10:09 PM   #64
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 24,965
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
I take those responses as "the AGW theory is non-falsifiable"?
I have not doubt that you do. More's the pity.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2008, 06:49 AM   #65
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 18,637
J.E., and Sez Me, that was a question, not a claim, from me.

At least gdnp is discussing my question.

I propose a different non-falsifiable theory: I call it Global Unidentified Flying Object Warming (GUFOW). It looks to me that UFO emissions are the true cause of AGW. While we don't know the exact mechanism, UFO sightings have gone up since the short cooling trend at WWII. MY guess is , since some giant amount of cheap energy is available to them for interstellar travel, they are probably wasting it within our atmosphere. This is causing the direct heating of our globe. And ice core samples do show that a raise in temperatures is followed by a rise in CO2 levels. If only I could do some computer models, I could 'prove' it. Maybe Dave Evans could help me out here?

I wonder why IDers don't do some Computer Models of theology?
__________________
Any sufficiently advanced idea is indistinguishable from idiocy to those who don't actually understanding the concept.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2008, 07:26 AM   #66
Pipirr
Graduate Poster
 
Pipirr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,433
Originally Posted by gdnp View Post
Can someone explain to me what it is supposed to mean when a skeptic claims a scientific theory is non-falsifiable?

I can't explain it. I've yet to see a 'skeptic' properly define what they mean when they say AGW isn't falsifiable.

Actually I did find a rare response to the question from someone working in the field. Michael Tobis appears to be as unimpressed by the falsifiability problem as I am. A few choice quotes:

Quote:
AGW is not an organizing principle of climate theory at all.

Hypotheses, organizing principles, of this sort emerge from the fabric of a science as a consequence of a search for unifying principles. The organizing principles of climatology come from various threads, but I'd mention the oceanographic sysyntheses of Sverdrup and Stommel, the atmospheric syntheses of Charney and Lorenz, paleoclimatological studies from ice and mud core field work, observational work by Wigley and Jones, and computational work starting with no less than Johnny von Neumann.

The expectation of AGW does not organize this work. It emerges from this work. It's not a theory, it's a consequence of the theory.

So attacks on climate change as if it were a "theory" make very little sense. Greenhouse gas accumulation is a fact. Radiative properties of greenhouse gases are factual. The climate is not going to stay the same. It can't stay the same. Staying the same would violate physics; specifically it would violate the law of energy conservation. Something has to change.

If you want to convince me that the sensitivity is less than 2 or more than 4, you will have to provide quite a good deal of evidence, but I don;t think this is what the denialists have in mind when they ask me what would "falsify the hypothesis". In fact, though, they haven't defined their terms. If the sensititivity is less than 1, is the supposed hypothesis falsified? What if it is more than 6? If the onset time is a hundred years rather than ten?
It's an interesting read; there's more at the link.

Apparently its obvious to some people that AGW isn't falsifiable. But what precisely about it is not?
Pipirr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2008, 07:36 AM   #67
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 43,039
Originally Posted by Pipirr View Post
I can't explain it. I've yet to see a 'skeptic' properly define what they mean when they say AGW isn't falsifiable.

Actually I did find a rare response to the question from someone working in the field. Michael Tobis appears to be as unimpressed by the falsifiability problem as I am. A few choice quotes:



It's an interesting read; there's more at the link.

Apparently its obvious to some people that AGW isn't falsifiable. But what precisely about it is not?
It's good to read someone sum up so succinctley what the actual case is. If you look at the recent 'climate conference' in New York, Pat Michaels has already accepted that this is the case. It's not a matter of if CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it's just a matter of how much warming there will be. Time for the 'deniers' to step up and become sceptics.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
“Perception is real, but the truth is not.” - Imelda Marcos
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2008, 09:10 AM   #68
mhaze
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,718
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
It's good to read someone sum up so succinctley what the actual case is. If you look at the recent 'climate conference' in New York, Pat Michaels has already accepted that this is the case. It's not a matter of if CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it's just a matter of how much warming there will be. Time for the 'deniers' to step up and become sceptics.
The expectation of AGW does not organize this work. It emerges from this work. It's not a theory, it's a consequence of the theory.

This contribution from Pipirr I find to be a quote from the first link from google <-- "Is AGW falsifiable". Many others links follow which present the skeptical argument that "AGW is not falsifiable". If Pipirr has "yet to see a skeptic present the argument" as he indicates, it is because he stopped reading at the first linky.

(Pipirr's link to Michael Tobias is an easy target for smears and invective, lack of peer reviewed publications, etc., but it is warmers who use these tactics then present someone like Tobias as authoritative. Let's just say that someone who has at the top of their website a reverent Gorean quote string....). So Pipirr, I encourage you to traverse the string of links in the first page or so of the google search, and report back with a clear exposition of what skeptics consider "AGW is not falsifiable", instead of exhibiting your confirmation bias so readily.

Leaving that aside completely, Tobias being an artist and worthy of respect in his own right, as is David Evans for obvious reasons, and looking at the substantive argument:

Many studies show the impact of solar to account for 30,50 or 69% of 20th century warming. Other studies show that 20th century warming can be entirely or mostly accounted for by natural climate cycles. Yet other studies and or IPCC claims that all of 20th century warming is due to AGW.

Obviously, natural climate cycles, solar effects, and some CO2 warming effect exist, the question is in what relative ratios and importance, and by what evidence the conclusion is derived.

Is it necessary to invoke AGW to explain the 0.7C warming of the 20th century? No. Solar+natural cycles can easily explain all 20th century warming. No AGW explanation is required nor is it sufficient.

Is it likely or possible there is some effect from CO2? The skeptical community views the effect of CO2 as between roughly to 0.0-0.4C of the 0.7C 20th century warming effect being due to CO2.

Warmology pseudoscience holds that 100% of 20th century warming is due to CO2. Obviously, there is and will continue to be a disagreements.

Last edited by mhaze; 26th July 2008 at 09:29 AM.
mhaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2008, 10:35 AM   #69
gdnp
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,998
Originally Posted by Pipirr View Post
I can't explain it. I've yet to see a 'skeptic' properly define what they mean when they say AGW isn't falsifiable.

Actually I did find a rare response to the question from someone working in the field. Michael Tobis appears to be as unimpressed by the falsifiability problem as I am. A few choice quotes:

It's an interesting read; there's more at the link.
Thanks. This states far more explicitly what I thought was likely the case. Climate theory is like a strong fabric made up of many individual threads. The breaking of a single thread is unlikely to make the entire cloth unwind, but if enough threads go bad we will have to replace it with a new theory.

Which still leaves the question: theory or no, falsifiable or no, AGW is either a serious threat or a tempest in a teapot or something in between. So what is our best course of action? Wait until evidence is incontrovertible, knowing that by that time irreversible catastrophic change may already be taking place?
gdnp is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2008, 10:58 AM   #70
Pipirr
Graduate Poster
 
Pipirr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,433
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
[i]This contribution from Pipirr I find to be a quote from the first link from google <-- "Is AGW falsifiable". Many others links follow which present the skeptical argument that "AGW is not falsifiable". If Pipirr has "yet to see a skeptic present the argument" as he indicates, it is because he stopped reading at the first linky.

I didn't use Google to find this link.

And I didn't say what you 'indicate' that I said with your use of quotations.

Do stop misquoting me.
Pipirr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2008, 11:46 AM   #71
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 15,405
Originally Posted by Pipirr View Post
And I didn't say what you 'indicate' that I said with your use of quotations. Do stop misquoting me.
I've tried to explain to mhaze the complex concept of how quotation marks work ... to no avail.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
My authority is total - Trump
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2008, 12:37 PM   #72
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 25,048
Originally Posted by gdnp View Post
Remember, there are some non-random fluctuations as well. We probably hit the minimum in the current solar cycle in January. Since average global temperature fluctuates with the solar cycle, 2007 should have been a relatively cool year. Therefore, if the NASA data are correct and 2007 was the second hottest on record, then we should expect temperature increases to accelerate over the next 5-6 years as sunspot activity picks up.
2007 was slightly unusual in that it started with El Nino conditions and ended with La Nina conditions. (We currently have neutral, Es Nada conditions.) The next sustained El Nino will be one to watch.

If the solar cycle does have a noticeable climate signature, then clearly you're right about the next 5-6 years.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2008, 12:40 PM   #73
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 25,048
Originally Posted by gdnp View Post
Can someone explain to me what it is supposed to mean when a skeptic claims a scientific theory is non-falsifiable?
It's just a sciency sound-bite. They'll still be chanting it when the ice-caps are lapping around their ankles (while claiming that AGW must be false because their feet are cold).
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2008, 12:51 PM   #74
gdnp
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,998
Originally Posted by CapelDodger View Post

If the solar cycle does have a noticeable climate signature, then clearly you're right about the next 5-6 years.
Huh. I thought this was reasonably well established. I still have a lot to learn.
gdnp is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2008, 03:26 PM   #75
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 25,048
Originally Posted by gdnp View Post
Huh. I thought this was reasonably well established. I still have a lot to learn.
There's a lot of noise to eliminate, and a lot of variation in the cycles. We don't have observations of very many cycles, and a major eruption or two can easily strike off a complete cycle, so the perils of accidental data-mining are acute. People have been trying to find a signature since the solar cycle was first recognised - 1830's, I think. The earliest attempts used grain-prices as a proxy for harvests as a proxy for climate, and why not?

There's always been a healthy contingent of sceptics eager to knock down any claims. And there's been a handful of enthusiasts who never gave up. All very healthy, really. I gather that particular arms-race had a noticeable impact on the early development of statistics. (I don't have figures on that, it's just something I read in a credible source .)

Just how robust the most recent work is I'm not able to judge. It certainly has much better data - we measure solar output directly now, not via a sunspot number proxy - but it's yet to stand the test of time. Which is to say, how robustly will it assimilate the next few cycles?

From my deep-time perspective (often mistaken for cynicism, which is an attribute of mine) I very much doubt it'll survive the slings and arrows.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2008, 03:40 PM   #76
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 25,048
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
I've tried to explain to mhaze the complex concept of how quotation marks work ... to no avail.
Were I designing a Turing Test Candidate I would regard the ability to interpret and assimilate an explanation as a serious challenge. Which is, I think, how Turing saw it.

Doing cut-ups of the human side of the conversation, incorporating Google-access and blogs, defining a crude ideological slant on a specific subject ... No great challenges.

Just saying.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2008, 03:46 PM   #77
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 25,048
Originally Posted by gdnp View Post
I still have a lot to learn.
Only about detail, IMO. You clearly know how to think and to communicate, as do so many splendid people in these Forums.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2008, 03:50 PM   #78
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 11,348
Originally Posted by gdnp View Post
Huh. I thought this was reasonably well established. I still have a lot to learn.
Of course it’s falsifiable, but that’s not what you asked for. You asked for *proof*, but science isn’t in the business of proving things, that honor goes to mathematicians and philosophers who specialize in logic.

Science is about finding the best, most likely, most useful answer. To that end you are correct it must have predictive power, and must capable of being falsified. Some people however, will only accept actual falsification as “proof” something is falsifiable. Of course this is simply an excuse to dismiss the very large body of published science out of hand.
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2008, 04:01 PM   #79
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 25,048
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
It's good to read someone sum up so succinctley what the actual case is. If you look at the recent 'climate conference' in New York, Pat Michaels has already accepted that this is the case. It's not a matter of if CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it's just a matter of how much warming there will be. Time for the 'deniers' to step up and become sceptics.
The Real Manhatten Project certainly exposed the broad-church nature of this particular cult. It's a rainbow-alliance. From the "it's not happening" through "it's not science" through to "the sensitivity is exaggerated". The saner voices are all being heard at the "sensitivity" end these days. Even Monckton's Embarrassment is about sensitivity.

(The Real Manhattan Project because it really happened in Manhattan, and it was really important. Simply everybody was there, even Viscount Munchkin. Not Steve McIntyre, of course; far too vulgar. Probably wears an off-the-rack suit .)
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2008, 04:04 PM   #80
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 25,048
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Of course it’s falsifiable, but that’s not what you asked for. You asked for *proof*, but science isn’t in the business of proving things, that honor goes to mathematicians and philosophers who specialize in logic.

Science is about finding the best, most likely, most useful answer. To that end you are correct it must have predictive power, and must capable of being falsified. Some people however, will only accept actual falsification as “proof” something is falsifiable. Of course this is simply an excuse to dismiss the very large body of published science out of hand.
Did you perhaps hit the wrong "Quote" button?
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:05 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.