**BigT **it is clear that he is indeed trolling, he thinks that pointing in a no-subtle way that all this is unfalsifiable and that cites are useless will carry the day, sad really. Even sadder that it is a hijack too, but to me it is clear that the purpose is to make it his show and ignore the OP.
Speaking of that, I forgot to post Skeptical Science’s take on Climategate 2.0:
[QUOTE=BigT]
Where the hell does GIGO predict that temperatures might decline?
[/QUOTE]
He’s repeatedly stated that assorted declines wouldn’t falsify his claims; only a decline past a certain level would do so.
“At its simplest, the future would show that, besides not warming, it would cool down to levels like on the 70’s as the current evidence shows what the temperature should be with no human made CO2 in the atmosphere.”
He went on to add that, while a decline short of the '70s levels isn’t enough, even the aforementioned decline to the '70s levels wouldn’t actually suffice to falsify the whole thing – but that a bigger decline would do so.
Who else is here? If another poster shows up to predict X amount of warming on Y timetable, spelling out falsification criteria that kick in over a specified long term given a smaller amount of warming (or no warming at all, to say nothing of possible cooling), then I’ll gladly consider each such falsifiable claim in turn.
Did you somehow miss the earlier post where I granted – complete with an exclamation point! – that it’s decidedly falsifiable? You’re the one who previously mentioned that assorted declines wouldn’t falsify your claims, but that bigger declines would; BigT seems to find that astonishing --* “Where the hell does GIGO predict that temperatures might decline? I have never heard any scientist claim that”* --but unless you’d like to now spell out that, no, you didn’t really mean it, such that any decline over a long enough term would suffice for falsification, then by all means stick to your falsification criteria and I’ll keep nodding in agreement that it’s indeed falsifiable.
Nonsense. Imagine every allegation mentioned by the OP were true and in context – the science is being manipulated, deceptive figures, hide the decline, decide on the main message to guide what is left out – but imagine it’s years down the road, and all of it applies to as-yet-future data rather than past data. Would such a cite be relevant then? Not for your falsification criteria, given that you believe a decline is as consistent with the claims as a rise would be. Would the future cite be relevant if it established the opposite? Well, no; if neither a rise or a decline would falsify the claims, then what difference would it make either way?
So why should past data in general, and the OP in specific, be different? It doesn’t matter whether or not they’re hiding a decline if a decline is irrelevant.
As the rest is just the hijack we will leave the not relevant points to the OP aside.
Oh well, fantasy la la land again.
What you say here is not clear at all, the relevant cites show that deniers did cut on purpose several lines from the emails, the cites do show that the Daily Mail is deceiving people, so the cites are useful to check the whole context and who is pulling a fast one.
This demonstrates to all that you did on purpose avoid looking at the cites, there is no way you could had avoided noticing that what we are looking is mostly noise, that is, other forces that are also affecting climate, they are cyclical in nature, and notice that word? Cyclical? Are you so dense that you will ignore that the past data is important to show how this current “decline” you are so fond of has taken place several times in the past **but **that those cycles are getting warmer? Many scientists BTW like Latif did predict this kind of behavior and as BEST demonstrated, the earth is still warming.
Funny how the people who loves Wikileaks hates the Climaleaks and people who love Climaleaks hate Wikileaks.
And just like that, you’ve almost made it to relevance.
I’m fine with the claim that what you call “this current ‘decline’” is cyclical in nature. I’m likewise fine with the claim that said cycles “are getting warmer”. All you need to do is spell out the other half, the falsification criteria: going forward, what hypothetical evidence would flip that around? What temperature data, on what timetable, would in years to come make you go goggle-eyed and say, am I missing something, or is this latest cycle not in fact getting any warmer?
You handwave away stuff as not good enough – calling it “other forces” or “mostly noise” – and you’ll note that I don’t dispute any of that, but merely ask that you throw in the other half while you’re at it: what would be good enough?
I am so confused right now. But in any case, will both of you either stop it or make a different thread? ^^
I actually linked to this in the OP, but yeah, link it again. Great video, really. 
Pretty simple, really: one is after truth. The other is after deception and intellectual dishonesty. Seriously, these quotes can only truly be problematic after someone tries very, very hard to take them out of context.
Fine by me if it’s fine by him.
What large-scale news outlet published context-free snippets of Wikileaks documents with the intent to deceive?
Do you also confuse James O’Keefe’s contrived edits with good journalism?
Done already, I refused to answer his last not related to the thread points.
This time I missed this one.
Yeah, people who deny have a way to confuse others, that is a feature with them, not a bug.
The falsification they demand in this case was attempted already by Muller and the BEST team, they tested to see if the decline was hidden and/or the data altered, they found no such things.
To The Other Waldo Pepper:
You are a fucking idiot who is not fooling anyone.
That is all.
Then the Climate Change Believers should be happy for this occasion to once again have their favourite agenda on the front pages. In Denmark some people are rather miffed at what appears to be deliberate stuffing of the UN IPCC panel with people subscribing to the correct set of opinions, which in this case are “Anti-Svensmark.” (3205) Henrik Svensmark is not some crackpot, and I should expect other climate scientist would be happy for his alternative theories as a tool to develop and polish their own theories. But for some reason, and rather disappointingly so, that doesn’t seem to be the case. Whatever, personally I don’t really give a shit either way, since I’m already in favour of alternative energy forms for many other reasons not related to global warming. I think you’d be able to reach a far wider audience if you stressed some of those concerns.
The only O’Keefe I know is somebody pretending to be a painter.
You waited until after I agreed with the OP to stop arguing with GIGO about what I consider the all-important first step in considering a scientific claim – to ask what would falsify it – and didn’t think to open a new thread, or shoot me a PM, where you could briskly mention what (a) you think I believe and what (b) you think I’m trying to fool people into believing? Care to clarify elsewhere?
For the record, what started the hijack was Scylla’s remark, which elucidator quibbled with and GIGO weighed in on; I took issue with, effectively, a response to a response – all of which possibly belonged in another thread but none of which drew criticism for being off-topic until after I weighed in. I believe that Scylla and elucidator and GIGO – and, indeed, everyone in this thread – may have something different in mind when briskly mentioning “global warming”, each of 'em with different falsification criteria in mind – but now that said issue is apparently off the table, and you want to throw a quick but vague insult, why not spell out your point where it’d be on-topic?
Uh, they already looked at his idea, not much traction there.
http://climatecrocks.com/2011/08/31/from-the-horses-mouth-the-new-study-on-cosmic-rays-and-climate/
"How much Keeffe is in this movie anyway?
A major source of anthropogenic warming is light leaking from Kinkade’s paintings.
“Yes, they’re fools, gentlemen… but what kind of fools are they?” - Gary Larson.
Just as I pointed out before, peculiar denier ideas do not come from their “original” minds, previous history tells me that someone already inserted those ideas on many wanna be debaters on this subject, and it is important IMHO to disclose where those ideas come from.
Sticking to the subject at hand, it is clear that TOWP could not identify falsification even if it bite him in the ass, as mentioned, Muller with the BEST team had the means and knew where to look to falsify the evidence presented by the scientists “involved” in “climategate” He ended up confirming what the scientists said all along.
Well, if we’re back on for this, let’s put that claim to the test: feel free to supply two or three or however many ostensible falsification criteria you’d like, and see whether I can pick out the one that qualifies. Or were you just now making a claim you can’t back up? Wouldn’t surprise me either way.
For the record, I’d agreed you’d supplied a falsification criterion back when you for dubious reasons picked the 15-20 year test, and agreed you’d supplied one after you moved the goalposts, and AFAICT would readily agree to any other replacement falsification criterion you wish. But as for this:
Are you hinting that asking those who make predictions to spell out their falsification criteria is a denier idea with a source that needs to be disclosed? That it’s not standard operating procedure on the SDMB, and in science, and in everyday life – indeed, in every context where predictions are made?
That’s really quite odd. It’s almost disturbing. Asking after falsifiability criteria is, and ought to be, the default in such situations; do you disagree?
Not on your case as many already know were are you coming from.
BTW the falsification at hand here is regarding the data used by the scientists accused in the climategate “scandal” if you are incapable of sticking to the subject go somewhere else.
So you throw around the “could not identify falsification even if it bite him in the ass” line, but back down when it comes time to put up or shut up? No surprise there.
Hey, you’re the one who just now said I can’t identify falsification – a claim which (a) really belonged somewhere else, and which (b) I couldn’t have responded to if you hadn’t made, and which (c) you back away from backing up. But if you think you have something interesting and on-topic to say about “the falsification at hand”, then I’m all ears.
I will leave the actual debating to those with more knowledge and a more erudite style. I’ll just stick with gratuitous insults, thanks, as I’m then playing to my strengths.
But keep on “sowing doubt”. Twenty years ago you would have been shilling for the tobacco industry.
He is so cute when he pretends that the falsification at hand was not mentioned in the following part of my post
Once again, Muller knew were to look, he found bupkiss and he had to admit even to congress that the evidence was in favor of the scientists that were accused of impropriety on “climategate”