I’m afraid you’ll have to clarify; are you referring to how my original line of questioning involved asking you for your goalpost, at which point I promptly looked for the raw numbers you specified rather than anything else in the reports? I couldn’t have done otherwise.
What’s important is that predictions are falsifiable; your original was; you eventually moved the goalposts to another falsifiable point; I commend you on both.
And picking at his nits.
Yep, it is interesting that picking at nits is the all important thing and so he can avoid to even have to comment on why Judith Curry has egg on her face for doing the 100th version of “warming has stopped” “in the last ten years or so” argument.
It’s only all-important in that it comes before everything else. When confronted by a prediction, step one is to discover whether it’s falsifiable; we shouldn’t get to step two or step three or whatever until we’ve answered that first crucial question.
If it were still relevant, I’d comment on it. I surely would’ve commented on it had you posted that when your original goalposts were in place; you’ve since moved the goalposts, such that the argument at issue (a) is no longer relevant and so (b) no longer requires a comment. At present, we’re on the same side.
Yes, everyone come gape at the guy who (a) invariably asks that predictions be falsifiable, and (b) swiftly agrees to the other side’s moved goalposts of choice.
The problem I have with this approach is the vagueness of it all.
With a physical object (car, gasoline, clothes, food) I can see (and possess) a tangible asset. With services (doctor’s exam, car repairs), I can see the person “leanding” me their skills and training, and I grok the benefit.
With a “carbon credit” (or tax), it’s an item (not tradable by myself as the end purchaser) that doesn’t seem to do anything. It’s value is whatever some faceless beaurecrat says it is. (I bid 200 quat-loos!)
Considering the point that the OWS are trying to make in that money corrupts both buisness and politics, can you not see where I would worry that such a system [carbon tax] could be abused? It smells like a scam in the making… 
I saw a program on it the other day. They used a billion data points and the studies they were claiming were flawed all over the right wing mainstream press a couple years ago, were all found correct. It will not get the play the old stories got though.
Old, but still relevant. Not sure how reliable of a source Michael Savage is, but yeah… Good in theory, but in practice, it could prove to be an issue.
Which Savage? The “Savage Love” guy or the troglodyte radio host? 
It all depends on the details, as for that last cite, I do not think that Goldman would be able to benefit now as it was drubbed by the meltdown and it is currently still losing money.
What is needed then is to learn from past mistakes and make well designed Cap-and-Trade and carbon tax programs.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/big_picture_solutions/cap-and-trade.html
The OP is a canard. While GIGO assails Anthony Watts for being a hypocrite and a slinger of mud and arrows, he and his ilk are happy to resort to ad-hominem attacks in attempting to discredit skeptics, who by and large agree the earth has warmed in the last 100 years, but disagree there is irrefutable proof man has caused most or all of this warming.
The complex factors that create our global climate (and warming) remain poorly understood. Indeed, virtually all models that predict catastrophic causes from increased CO2 emission rely on a speculative, unproven (some might say fictitious) “multiplier effect” on water vapor. Otherwise, the logarithmic diminishing effect on climate of increased CO2 emissions can’t be accounted for. That is, each additional amount of CO2 warms the climate far less than the other CO2 did before it. Without the invention of a multiplier effect, the dire predictions intended to shock and scare people into action fall flat on their faces.
The Skeptical Science site that GIGO links to most frequently is decidedly pro-AGW. That is, it generally advances the viewpoint that man has caused all or most of recently observed warming, and consists of a nicely blended mixture of facts, propaganda, and omission. Yet GIGO likes to pretend this site is objective, while labeling Anthony Watts a “denier.”
Anthony Watts’s site is more transparent than many of the pro-AGW sites out there, including your favorite pet site “Skeptical Science.” Watts generally makes very few bones about what his positions are (and why) unlike that site. The fact that GIGO and his ilk deplore Watts while ascribing to the views of advocates-in-scientists-clothing, such as James Hansen and Michael Mann, is amusing.
There remain many important, unanswered questions about our climate. Is current warming simply part of a much longer scale trend dating to the Little Ice age? Does the water vapor feedback effect really exist as theorized by CAGW proponents? What kind of dampening effect does increased CO2 absorption by plants have? What other feedbacks (dampening or positive) are we not yet aware of, or have misunderstood, or have improperly quantified?
GIGO would like you to ignore these questions, because the science is “settled.” What I think that GIGO and many on this board do not appreciate is that the reason that people—sorry, “deniers”—are hostile to climate change scientists is that many of these men and women have abdicated their spots on the sidelines. They are instead performing research and publishing while actively trying to promote political agendas and advocate for outcomes. It is politics, not science. I believe GIGO understands this, as he appears quite willing to level this charge against the very “deniers” that he loathes. Hilariously, GIGO fails to appreciate that this exact behavior is being engaged in by bad actors on the side that advocates the belief that man is in the process of causing catastrophic climate change.
Politics, not science. Hence the vitriol, the recriminations, and everything else. And as far as politics go, I’d rather not see sweeping changes enacted on me, the United States, or anyone else based on what is still little more than glorified speculation that man is going to cause dire warming in the next century and beyond. This, I suspect, is the underlying root of Scylla’s skepticism, as it is mine.
Post #11 and the links showed otherwise. Watts and Co. want to tell others to forget all their previous efforts made to undermine the evidence for that warming.
who are the “some” who say it is fictitious?
Because Watts is. And Skeptical Science links and refers to the published science and evidence.
Far more amusing is to see that you have to rely on lies to make a point. James Hansen and Michael Mann are scientists and respected, Watts claim to fame was eviscerated by Muller and there is no retraction whatsoever from Watts regarding his once again demonstrated shoddy climate station work.
And here you link once again to the discredited source, ignoring the evidence and research done at NASA and others.
The overwhelming evidence wrought forward just by the BEST team alone shows that you do not have a clue about what you are saying here.
Then it is demonstrated to be an unfounded skepticism, and the evidence points to very powerful forces playing you like a fiddle, the discussion now has to focus on what to do, are you cowards willing to continue complaining about the overwhelming supported evidence when the only result is to let groups like Greenpeace dictate the future solutions?
GIGO, the fact that you appear to have more zeal than anyone else on this board on the topic of global warming does not make you any more correct. In my estimation, you are nothing more than a tireless (and loathsome, to the extent you engage in name-calling tactics) political operative that advocates for a position that cannot be objectively demonstrated. Keep up the good fight by citing Skeptical Science until you’re blue in the face.
Sorry, I came to this discussion from an historical angle, the reality is that after 100 years of research it is really clear that me and the overwhelming number of researchers and scientific organizations are more correct than ever.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm
Piffle, they are mostly the messenger (as the science is linked on the posts for everyone to check) and you resorting to the killing the messenger fallacy just shows how dishonest you are.
And it is not just Skeptical Science BTW, you and Scylla need to do a lot of remedial reading:
But if you do not like that, just check what **Republican **scientists are saying about the issue.
And then what conservatives that do care about the climate say:
You’re passing up a golden opportunity with these two, GIGO.
If you want to convince them as you convinced me, address their objections the same way. You’re posting in reply to neuroman’s claim that you advocate for “a position that cannot be objectively demonstrated”; he believes that as I used to; show him your position can be objectively demonstrated by simply naming it. Tell him what you mean when you predict “global warming”: you have a specific amount of temperature change in mind for a specific timetable, you can spell it out in one sentence.
I’d bet you could make him realize you’re right by just posting your prediction. Instead, you post – other stuff.
Scylla mentions the early snowfall before adding that there’s “a mile of space between believing and knowing for sure.” One sentence from you can explain the irrelevance of that snowfall by shrinking the space between believing and knowing.
Upthread, you wrote this about me: “as I said before, I do post not for him but for others.” So post for them by posting your earlier reply to me: tell 'em what you’re predicting, and upon so clarifying see if they don’t suddenly realize that it’s (a) perfectly consistent with all the evidence and (b) something we all need to take seriously.
Linky not working at this time, But even before looking at it, I knew what it was:
One of the big reasons why I trust this science writer, is that he also does put down alarmist items that are unfounded, in this case the piece from the Independent was eviscerated for the author not bothering to check on the published science before relying on speculations.
What is important to get from this is that it is a link made to the popular press in an attempt to discredit all scientists, it is another trick from the deniers, so instead of dealing with the conservative estimations (yes, the predictions are conservative, but never mind that, even conservative estimations are despised by the deniers) of the published science regarding global warming, deniers just try to make a caricature of what most scientists agree with, it is a straw-man argument.
Here’s a link to Matt Ridley’s recent Angus Millar Lecture of the Royal Society of the Arts, in which he outlines much of the pseudoscience from the global warming zealots:
That one’s not loading up for me, but SAKURA188: Situs Live Casino Online Terbaik Indonesia 2025 is.
By the way, I don’t engage with GigoBuster anymore because of his persistent failure to respond to reasonable questions about his position.
Probably they should call him “GoogleSpewer,” because it seems for the most part, he just does key word searches on warmist web sites and then posts lengthy quotes.