Twenty years ago I would have been – and, as it happens, was – asking folks to supply falsifiable predictions about cigarettes. To no one’s astonishment, they did.
Just as I made specific reference to “something interesting and on-topic to say about ‘the falsification at hand’” in the following part of my post?
Couldya get back to us when you decide whether or not environmentalists should go with a strategy that might possibly make it a bit easier for their opponents to call them “fanatics” (using the term “global warming”) or whether they should go with a strategy that will 100% guarantee that everybody will dismiss them out of hand as fanatics (rolling the world back to the turn of the twentieth century)?
And we are doing here too, but it is clear that your blind act is wearing thin, already the cite from RealClimate mentions several items and papers from the researchers that can be falsified to show how devious the scientists involved with "“climategate” were, Muller ended up confirming the data and supporting the scientists.
Er, yes. Have I said otherwise? Again, the hijack involving my response to your response to Scylla’s response was over a separate issue; I don’t know that I’ve said the scientists in question were devious, or that Muller’s widely-reported vindication of them fell short.
By now, isn’t it clear that there is a vast conspiracy afoot? All of those scientists, marching in lockstep to hoodwink a gullible public. Notice how few of them are left who will speak the clear truth that GW is hogwash. And this despite the obvious lack of scientific rigor! No one dares to come forth and speak the truth, for fear of being crushed by the hippies and the tree huggers, who wield such awesome power in the halls of Congress.
They have only the pitiful paltry billions of the coal and oil industry to back them, its no wonder their voices are submerged in the din! No doubt, many of the scientists who used to be “skeptics” have been intimidated or corrupted by the juggernaut of the solar power industry.
(Your correspondent hastens to advise that the forgoing is intended as snark and sarcasm. If your snarkometer doesn’t register at least 700 millihicks, adjust your calibration accordingly.)
Actually nothing much, and that demonstrates that I was correct, you do not bother to even check how bankrupt the originators of your ideas are.
Well, as you have not paid attention, this is somehow related, Muller also had to look at the “there is a decline” or the “there is no warming” business, as those items came from the climate gate scandal. The vindication of the scientists is proof of the science that they reported, their methods and data were checked by skeptical researchers and what BEST showed was how pathetic the remaining accusers (not Muller now) are and continue to be by not acknowledging that the earth is warming.
My idea is to ask folks who make predictions to spell out their falsification criteria. I doubt there’s anything bankrupt about that idea’s originators or practitioners.
Again, what is that to me? I asked for your falsification criteria; you for some reason spelled out that, regardless of whether the earth warms a bit or cools a bit or plateaus right off, your predictions would be vindicated: assorted increases wouldn’t count against it, assorted declines wouldn’t count against it, it makes no difference either way. When I’m discussing the matter with you, why would I find a cite relevant if it involves the earth warming as per your claims? It would be neither more nor less useful if it involved the earth cooling as per your claims, or plateauing off as per your claims.
Imagine I boldly predict that a given restaurant either won’t be open next week, or will be open, or will be open some of the time and closed some of the time – but won’t become the new Baseball Hall Of Fame during that span. Imagine you don’t especially doubt anything I’m saying. And so the place is reported as being open for business once or twice, but some folks say that’s a lie; you don’t join in with any accusations; I soon arrive to trumpet the latest evidence that, a-ha, see, it really was open for business. What is that to you? You never disputed my claims, or endorsed the other ones; you already knew I’d be right whether it was open or closed or some combination thereof; any cite of that sort is mere irrelevance; only the Hall-of-Fame longshot would be of interest.
Translation: I do not want to deal with the subject in the OP.
Glad we could figure that out.
http://www.sciencefriday.com/blog/2011/11/climate-conspiracy-1-scientists-falsify-data/
Again, if not for your off-topic post in response to Scylla’s off-topic post, I doubt I’d have posted in this thread at all; your odd remark sparked my desire for clarification. Don’t know why you’re only figuring that out now; I thought I’d made it clear earlier.
I don’t see how I’m being pressured into remaining a skeptic; I’d bet good money that your moved-goalposts prediction will come to pass. The globe may get considerably cooler, or considerably warmer, or split the difference right down the middle, in the decades to come, without counting against your prediction, which I believe will prove true.
I think we need to set our snarkometers to Megahicks.
Heh, one side couldn’t possibly be part of a conspiracy, but the other obviously is. Lovely.
It is not a conspiracy when it is all on the open; nevertheless, the efforts of the fossil fuel companies to fund denialism are still bad.
The scientists have been exonerated and their data confirmed several times already. But I guess that bit of news was missed by many right wing sources.
Gigo,
You have become to the global warming debate what FXMastrmind is to the nuclear power debate.
It is not pretty.
Slee
Meh, I caught FX mastermind spewing bullshit before, if you think I’m the same, point at any example here that is not true; mind you, I encountered you before doing the same as FX regarding this issue.
Dude, please give it a rest. With the way you run to these threads and chomp down on the latest nonsense like a chihuahua going after the pant leg of a mailman, and the dismissive tenor of your posts to all non-1000% believers is making you look like a friggin loon. And that has nothing to do with your position in the debate.
Take a fucking vacation. Chill out on beach. Go winter camping. Join a monastery in the himalayas. See a freakin psychiatrist. This is not healthy.
Seriously, you’re making yourself, and your side, look like an ass.
Sure, do not let know how off base people like you are regarding this issue. Yeah right,
It won’t work as even others are supporting me even here on this thread, even this silly effort of telling me that I have something of a trouble is a baseless proposition.
Oh really? What is my position, genius? You’re turning into a fucking nut. And as I already said, it has nothing to do with your position on the issue. Let go of the pant leg. It’s not going to hurt you to do so. really.
Going forward, let this be a lesson to you, climategate 2.0 is only showing who are the people who are not letting go of their ideology, they need to finally listen to what the scientists are telling us regarding this issue. Deniers like Watts are now going to the same column as creationists, and on this board it should not be shameful to use them as punching bags.
:rolleyes: And let this be a lesson to you, son: you can be correct on the facts and still be an ass. If you want a cite for the veracity of that statement, go to just about any thread concerning this alleged* climate change issue that you’ve participated in.
*Just wanted to to make sure you’re paying attention to the lesson.