No, we’re agreed that “it takes time”; that’s why I asked how much time, sure as I liked the answer you gave; 15 years will be here in short order, and things are looking great.
Which is why I want to know: what will convince (a) skeptical scientists, and (b) non-skeptical scientists? Maybe twenty years for the former and thirty for the latter? We know what answer is good enough for you; what’s good enough for them?
The cite isn’t there; you were wrong; I can’t prove a negative; supply the quote from the link or drop it, as you please.
And… yet again. The defer to a brighter future argument. Can you really not see what you keep repeating? Whichever way you spin it, every time I break down the argument you present this is what I get:
[ul]
[li]Continue causing cumulative damage to the environment and climate, damage that could lead to dangerous cascade effects that will be exponentially harder to address[/li][li]take no meaningful initiatives in the present because in a state of denial “there is no emergency”[/li][li]defer meaningful action to an unknown future in the hope that technology will eventually fix everything[/li][/ul]
“It’s not an emergency problem”? Link already provided by Gigobuster here reposted with emphasis:
There is an emergency right now and that’s when we consider ONE offending substance - the entire picture looks much worse. Look at the excellent materials that Gigobuster has been providing in this thread. They have obviously been going over some posters’ heads but they are good.
The Volt is a real car and people are buying it (it and Nissan’s alternative are selling ok, Nissan is doing slightly better but it is HALF the price of the Volt). It’s not selling faster in the US because 1) the introduction of new technology is usually slow at first and done as a product test rather than a contained business model, 2) prices are still high, particularly for the Volt’s monster (and revolutionary) battery, 3) the market attitudes in America tend to be anti-environmental and pro-big wasteful car culture. Volt pre-orders are doing OK in Europe, where the population enjoys less politically motivated denial and better environmental awareness. And don’t forget there are other alternatives to the Volt around the world.
Of particular note, given how this thread has become all about denial and how quite a few misconceptions about the Volt originated from CNW Marketing Research, is the following:
In other words, bullshit-spewing by the usual suspects. Aggressive and destructive denial in the service of the “let’s defer until later” argument. Truly lovely. But let’s not get hung up on the Volt, after all it is just one option among others.
The way to accomplish it is first to recognize there is an **urgent **problem that needs to be addressed, and then to address that problem in a fairly aggressive manner commensurate with its severity. That includes having the government throw money at the issue in order to change current attitudes and markets, if necessary (which it clearly is). Goals. Milestones. Deadlines. Progress reports. None of this stuff happens by itself and it can take years just to set up a meaningful framework, modify popular attitudes, etc.
Of course, sitting and waiting for a technologically brighter tomorrow while the present situation gets worse is also an option, just not one that is acquainted with common sense.
Well I see you will attempt to teach grandma to suck eggs, but before that one should look at the big picture, temperatures were going down in the 50’s and then they did go up, on physical models (that do not deal with future predictions but with past and current data) scientists, and even skeptical ones, can see that cooling would be there already for several decades if it wasn’t for the heat brought by human made global warming gases.
The forcing made by human released global warming gases began to overtake the natural causes. This was mentioned before, a lot more cooling than the one you seem to think we have needs to be observed to falsify this. Plus we need also evidence for alternative causes on why the earth is warming or evidence that other mechanisms will overcome the forcing brought by human activities.
:sigh:, you even quoted my cite on your post #152
Scrolling down you can see that the cite not only deals with the polls but with the positions of the most involved scientific organizations with the issue:
That has a link to the PDA with the already quoted conclusions from the organizations.
Hey, I’m not the one who came up with the “15 years” mark, sure as I’m not the one who thinks 15 years is enough to falsify it. I asked for your falsification timetable, and you supplied it; I’m curious as to how much “more” is needed by actual scientists, and still await your answer on that if your timetable of choice isn’t good enough for them.
Er, yes; that’s exactly why I want to know how we can falsify it. If you say “we need also evidence” to that effect, all I want is specifics: what evidence, precisely, will suffice?
Which says nothing about whether they say it’s a problem; only that it’s occurring, and what the primary driver is, and what the conclusions are based on, and so on – but nowhere says what it claims you said. A quote reflecting what you claimed simply doesn’t appear in that quote, or on the linked page in question.
Sure, if we click on a link to another page we can of course find all sorts of other statements: “projected changes in climate will have both beneficial and adverse effects”, say, and “climate change will have broad impacts on society” – but, again, the claim you made seems to lack a quotable cite. Maybe if we click on a link to a link to a link to a link?
Nah, it was just only a test, I wanted to find evidence that in reality you do not check citations, and then you ignore them even if quoted, and you demonstrated that. Well done.
Incidentally also that bit of:
[QUOTE=The Other Waldo Pepper]
Pardon? I’ve stated that my primary concern with any scientific claim involves dealing with predictions that can currently be falsified; I’ve stated that I’m mildly interested in predictions that have already come to pass, but AFAIK only ever while adding that I’m more interested in predictions that can falsify it.
It’s the first question I usually ask about a scientific claim: not whether it’s tested well so far – because, had it already been falsified, there presumably wouldn’t even be a question – but how it can hypothetically be falsified going forward.
[/QUOTE]
Is ridiculous as you are only explaining why you do not want to deal with the predictions already made and fulfilled, it does not remove the fact that you are indeed actively ignoring that what the best science can offer is already here and it is telling us that we have to act.
Scientists take into account the whole picture, under those conditions demanding that we should wait for proof until a future date to do something about the best data that we have already have after 60 years, is indeed an attempt to ignore what was demonstrated before.
No quote you’ve provided backs up your claim; you supplied a quote that didn’t get the job done, and then declared victory upon coming up empty. Well done.
I’m not ignoring predictions that have already been made and fulfilled; I’ve merely asked – and you’ve helpfully answered – questions about what predictions could yet falsify it. That’s how science works, guy: folks keep making falsifiable predictions, and either keep verifying that a claim holds true or revise that claim as contrary evidence appears. Some claims get disproven, but we never otherwise declare a given claim proven; we only ever keep testing.
But I’m not saying we should wait for proof until a future date before doing something; I of course want to know what needs to happen in order to falsify the current claims, but that in no way means I advocate waiting before doing something. (Do you have a cite to me saying otherwise? I can’t help but figure you’ll link to a site that doesn’t actually contain a quote to that effect, and again miss the point to declare victory.)
[Looks up at the quotes] Well I have to say that you are indeed complaining too much, the quotes are there already and now I pointed were they are, deal with them.
That is nice, can you deal with the quotes and the science? I may decide that gravity will not work in a few years and so I will continue testing and react accordingly to check if the change takes place, but it would be silly to ignore the past scientific results and think we are safe by ignoring the leaning boulder that is over our house.
[QUOTE=The Other Waldo Pepper]
How do you plan to stop the warming? By having big government interfere with the free market? If so, that’s going to make 'em skeptical as the default.
Shucks, imagine two impossible things: first, that I have access to a working time machine and so can now talk my skeptical younger self into getting right on this problem; and second, that I at present give a crap about global warming. How would the conversation go?
[/QUOTE]
So, it is impossible that at present you give a crap about global warming.
Well, your first post in the thread did not have just what got us here now, it also had other howlers, like “We call it ‘climate change’ now.” that demonstrated how silly that post was but I wanted to be brief.
As for me, I’m constantly learning about what the science says and others are learning, it is not a big problem that in reality you are absorbing climate denier points, what it counts is that others are checking the science.
The quote you “pointed were they are” says nothing about whether they think it’s a problem. It states that (a) climate change is occurring, and (b) greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver, and (c) contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science – but there’s no (d) to back up what you’d claimed. Deal with it.
Indeed it would. I saw gravity work from '98 to '99, and kept watching it work in '00 and '01 and '02 and '03 and '04 and '05 and '06 and '07 and '08 and '09 and '10, which is a big part of why I’d never ignore a boulder over my house here in '11 – and if gravity keeps behaving the same way in '12 and '13 and '14 and so on, I’ll keep reacting accordingly.
I at present don’t give a crap about global warming; I saw the globe cool down from '98 to '99, and kept watching it not warm up in '00 and '01 and '02 and '03 and '04 and '05 and '06 and '07 and '08 and '09 and '10, which is a big part of why I’d never ignore global cooling in '11 – and if the climate keeps changing the same way in '12 and '13 and '14 and so on, I’ll keep reacting accordingly.
I do, however, give a crap about climate change – the climate’s been changing for years and years and years and years and years and years – and I don’t advocate waiting, I think we should do something about that right now. Don’t confuse “global warming” with “climate change”; the only way I can even imagine giving a crap about global warming is by mistakenly equating it with climate change, such that cooling is evidence of warming; so long as that’s impossible, I remain unable to convince my younger self that global warming is on the way.
That only works by ignoring that the organization’s positions are also what most scientists agree with.
I’m beginning to see a pattern, everything before '98 does not exist in your universe. Oh well, no danger to that you will convince the scientific world.
That is nice, as it was shown the experts still say that you and Bob Carter are just misrepresenting the data.
That is nice, do you have a cite of a climate scientist doing that?
BTW:
“the climate’s been changing for years and years and years and years and years and years” is yet another absorbed denialist point, what the science says to that:
“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard Feynman.
Even assuming for the sake of argument that you’re right about something, you’d still be wrong to cite a link that doesn’t assert it. If you tell me dogs are mammals and cite a link to, say, information about when Casablanca was filmed – well, I’d simply and only point out that your link doesn’t actually say a thing about what you claim it does. This is, of course, also what I’d do if you were insisting that dogs weren’t mammals, which is why the whole point is to evaluate whether your cite says what you claim it does, regardless.
Your cite – doesn’t. The words you’ve quoted from that cite – don’t.
Well, not yet, no. I know how many years you need; how many will the scientific world need?
Let me see if I understand you correctly; I’ll write out what I think the experts would say about the data, and you correct me if I get it wrong?
“So, did it get warmer or cooler from '98 to '99?”
“Cooler.”
“From '98 to '00?”
“Cooler.”
“From '98 to '01?”
“Cooler.”
“From '98 to '02?”
“Cooler.”
“From '98 to '03?”
“Cooler.”
“From '98 to '04?”
“Cooler.”
“From '98 to '05?”
“Warmer.”
“Really?”
“No, not really.”
“From '98 to '06?”
“Cooler.”
“From '98 to '07?”
“Cooler.”
“From '98 to '08?”
“Cooler.”
“From '98 to '09?”
“Cooler.”
“From '98 to '10?”
“Warmer.”
“Really?”
“No, not really.”
Doing what? Giving a crap about climate change? Doing something about it right now? Refusing to equate global warming and climate change? What?
I’m, uh, not denying that. I don’t think I’m making the point you’re anticipating and reacting to, here.
And, of course, it goes around and around; I think you’re fooling yourself, which is precisely why I asked what you believe could falsify your claims. So long as you limit yourself to saying X and Y and Z isn’t yet good enough evidence against it… without going on to add …but A or B or C would be good enough, you can go on fooling yourself indefinitely.
And that’s why I likewise want to know what evidence would be enough to get the scientists to admit they were wrong; so long as they limit themselves to saying they made correct predictions in the past and don’t yet have a reason to reconsider, they can likewise go on fooling themselves indefinitely – unless they spell out exactly what could hypothetically falsify their claims even now.
So, again: I know your chosen falsification criterion. What’s theirs?
Meh, just asking questions and hoping that nonsense makes sense to others uh?
When active conservative scientists like Barry Bickmore reports that there is a problem and we should curb CO2 emissions, an affirmation that scientists do not also see a problem is the one that needs a cite.
And you continue to ask questions to avoid dealing with the video on how Bob Carter misrepresented the data to continue to claim it is cooling after 1998.
Then “just asking questions” so as to not deal with the request that scientists are calling it now climate change, your sorry point on that first post of yours is based on denialist propaganda.
Finally you claim that you are not denying that humans are responsible, and yet, you are only avoid looking at solutions, continue to defend even already dropped denialist points and just asking questions.
I clearly can not worry that you will make any changes to the point of view of the experts on this issue so, as usual these replies are for all others so they can check the science and not worry about endless questions of already debunked points.
So was the Edsel, and no, people are not buying it. It’s a financial failure and it’s a Co2 failure because nobody is buying it.
You really don’t get it. You keep demanding that something be done and ignore that it’s already being done and that we’re on track technologically to make large scale changes. My argument has always been one of logistics and fiscal responsibility. It makes more sense to spend money researching a technology than to front it’s use when it’s not financially viable. We should spend the money on solar cell development and not on the solar cells themselves.
We will get the batteries needed for cars like the Volt not because of a need by those cars but because there is a universal push for cheaper, faster, smaller, lighter batteries. There are too many products on the market now that would benefit from such batteries. The tax money spent on the Volt would be better invested in battery research and not wasted on product design by a private concern.
I doubt it’s nonsense, though from the way you seem to be ducking the question it’s possible you’re genuinely misunderstanding it. So I’ll restate it: what needs to happen to falsify the predictions made by scientists about global warming? A year of cooling won’t do it; we know that. We know your stated criterion; what’s theirs?
The question isn’t whether some other affirmation needs a cite; it’s whether the affirmation you claimed was backed up by a particular cite was in fact backed up by the cite in question. Is that also so hard to understand as to approach nonsense, from your viewpoint? I’ll rephrase it: you cited X to establish Y; X said nothing about Y; regardless of Z – or A or B or C, or anything else – you got it wrong on X and Y.
That’s the whole reason I keep asking: what needs to happen to falsify the predictions made by scientists about global warming? I’m letting you call any shot you want; you can peg it to temperatures taken anywhere you like, over any span of time you name, when specifying what hypothetical evidence could make scientists realize no warming has taken place. I’m not making a claim; I’m requesting one. I’m not ruling out any data; I’m telling you to mention whatever data scientists think is key.
Pardon? I’m a guy who calls it climate change, and scientists also call it climate change. Which part of that is unclear to you? Which part of that is denialist propaganda?
Well, you’re partially correct; I don’t deny that humans are responsible for climate change. I am, though, interested in solutions. As for the “denialist” points and the “just asking questions”, it’s simply that I want to hear what hypothetical evidence would be enough to falsify current predictions – adding as always that I know the cool-down after '98 as reported by the UN’s WMO isn’t yet enough to do it, and going on to ask: what would be?
Every winter, I turn on the television and watch the proverbial man in the street (a) complain about how cold it is, and (b) make a snide comment about the falsehood of global warming. Every time, I see an expert patiently explain that one cold winter doesn’t disprove it, because short-term weather is quite different from long-term climate. And every time, I wait to see if the expert will go on to see what would disprove it; every time, they don’t.
So year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year the experts keep chuckling and telling the general public that one year of cooling won’t do it – and then keep stopping short instead of finishing the sentence to spell out what would do it – and then marvel at how the general public keeps reaching its own strange conclusions about what would do it. They’re not selling their idea because they’re not even mentioning it. They’re as coy on the news as you are in this thread: they merely say folks are wrong without adding what it takes to be right, and keep failing to change the point of view of folks who keep noting the lack of warming year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year and keep getting called “incorrect” without ever hearing what “correct” would be.
You think that’s a winning strategy? Your side is welcome to it.
You say I won’t make any changes to the point of view of the experts – but I don’t want to change their point of view; I’d be delighted to hear 'em predict warming, it’s merely that I want to hear it accompanied by a disclaimer spelling out the hypothetical evidence that would falsify their current predictions. That’s me requesting a point, not me asserting one; if you’d like to make said point by supplying that hypothetical evidence, we can then debunk or accept it – but that hasn’t happened yet.
No scientist says that, only “skeptics” or people that in reality consult denialist sites and then attempt to claim that they are not following them.
I think some doper before pointed out that when a wall of text is needed to explain a point then the point is usually a silly one or has no support.
We already established that you will ignore the past predictions and research that has convinced even skeptical scientists to drop see this point of attempting to falsify a cherry pick a date that has been selected to confuse people before and at the same time you continue to ignore the evidence already cited that it is warming, not cooling, as the CRU NASA and others keep telling Carter that it is wrong to say that there is cooling in recent years.
What it is clear is that the '98 year point has been dropped and most skeptics now concentrate on the sensibility issue, as Pat Michaels once again said, it is still warming and humans are responsible, but by how much?
Pat Michaels made the same point again that it is warming, but nowadays skeptics do concentrate on the levels the human CO2 emissions are affecting the current warming. Pat Michaels then avoids the '98 nonsense and looks at the science, but as one of the latest hearings showed, most scientists are not respecting him as even on his later points (that human influence is minimal) he is misinterpreting the data or missing important facts.
If you seriously think denialist types have a monopoly on referring to “climate change”, then you’ve got bigger problems than failing to read your own cites.
::shrugs:: I’ll gladly make it concise; I’ll make each point one sentence, if that helps you.
What needs to happen to falsify the predictions made by scientists about global warming?
Two sentences for two points:
The UN apparently disagrees about warming since '98, as per their 2011 press release about global average temperature.
I’m not ignoring past predictions when asking a separate question about what can falsify current predictions.
Again – as per point #1 – I’m merely asking how much would be enough, not saying the '98 starting point is enough.
Remember that that came from your first post here, you did refer to “now we call it climate change”. It demonstrated gross ignorance from the get go.
Explained many times, you do not like the answers because in reality it is very unlikely that you will be correct.
You are wrong from the get go, the el nino year of 1998 is recognized as an outlier when the warming caused by humans is what is taking place.
You are moving the goalposts, and using an outlier goal post for that.
Again, you are wrong from the get go, your basic “just asking question” is useless when the basis for it is flawed. And anyone can see you ignored the pasting Pat Michaels got in the hearings, in any case, that was to show all that even there Pat continues to acknowledges the basic fact that it is warming and humans are the cause of the recent warming.
We do call it climate change! What the heck do you think the letters in IPCC stand for? What point are you even trying to make?
It hasn’t been explained many times; you’ve mentioned your falsification criterion of choice, only to (a) backwalk it in this thread as a mere “humor him” bet, and to (b) emphasize that it’s not the falsification criterion that would satisfy actual scientists.
I can’t make this clearer: I’m not – that’s N-O-T – claiming that what’s happened since '98 is enough to serve as a falsification criterion for scientists. I’m asking what would be enough to serve as falsification criterion for scientists. And that’s, like, the exact opposite of what you’re making my position out to be; you read my posts as poorly as you read your linked cites.
In that “moving the goalposts” means sticking, by default, to the same goalpost until and unless you supply me with a different one?
But there is no basis, flawed or otherwise; I’m simply asking what the falsification criterion would be, which is a question mercifully free of content or context. (If it helps, drop your bizarre preconceptions about me and simply deal with it as a question from someone who states no other basis?) And note, too, that it’s pretty much the opposite of useless; it’s what science is, such that every brisk quip from your side about how “what we’ve observed so far is insufficient to count aganst our predictions…” should be followed up by an equally brisk “…but the following would suffice.”
Again, I’m asking what would be good enough, and you keep replying with a mere “not that” – with, here, a side of “it’s very unlikely”. Given your outlandish reluctance to answer that straightforward question, you might as well be a denier trying to make the AGW crowd look bad; for one reason or another you act like you lack the confidence to crisply put the falsification cards on the table. (That said, though: have I ever cited Pat Michaels as a source?)
THAT’S your answer? The title sounds “Foxish”?
I gather that reading and understanding arguments and poiting out mistakes is not your way of making science.
Good to know.
Caution is your point? Isn’t that my point too? “Look, interesting results in the lab, let’s see if they apply in the real world”, however they seem to have big implications.
Yeah, it’s not like a poster I know that get all his quotes from the same webpage.
You did see that it was an '08 cite, didn’t you? They were pre-empting the study saying it wouldn’t produce the results it finally produced. There own admission was that if the results were like the actual ones were, then they themselves (and AGWers) would be wrong in the whole carbon teh sux0r stuff.
They said it.
Any SPECIFIC instances of lying (i.e. saying somethig one know to be wrong as it if were true)? OR, as usual, does lying means disagreeing with you?
Can I quote you on that? I mean, saying that opinions have nothing to do with science is, to say the least, supremely disingenous.
Heeeey, another “I-don’t-like-the-title-so-it’s-wrong” opinion. I’ll bet 1000 dollars that if the title had been “Deniers’ dam breaks” somehow you wouldn’t find it so objectionable.
Well, that’s his point. That politics are intefering with science. Isn’t that, in general a valid point? Isn’t, in fact, made by guys like you when it fits your desires?
Again with your “opinions-are-not-valid” stuff, even when the point is not about the scientific validity of the test (where opinions without facts would be less valuable) but the public action of humans and their motivation (where pure, cold science is less helpful).
…and you know that cosmic rays are not important because of which real-life, on-the-field experiment? I seem to have missed it.
Or is it you opinion?
That is my line, do not play like if you do not get it. Using “we call it climate change now” is boilerplate from denialists, the fact that you **did **use it betrayed where you are coming from.
It has satisfied virtually all scientists and experts, you do not like that tough.
It can not be much clearer, your point is really silly and incapable of changing minds.
You need to take the big picture into account, otherwise you are indeed just playing, and uselessly too.
You still insist, with no support from any organization like CRU and NASA that it is cooling, your point fails from there.
Now the reality is that **this **is plain evidence that you are the one giving skeptics a bad name, the reason why Pat Michaels was mentioned is to make the point that the very few experts that are involved with the pertinent research and still remain skeptics of AGW (or being just lukewarm to it) have dropped this “it hasn’t wormed up since 1998” or other recent dates canard and moved on to better points based on real data.
You already tripped mentioning denialists points several times already and with no thought on why you got them or why you thought it was ok to use it on your first post. But more importantly: you continue to ignore what the few skeptical scientists that the Heartland Institute or serious conservative think thanks do say: “Drop this point, you will kill us if you use it”.
I told you before that you are headed into nowhere-land territory is that continues to be your position, it is a very peculiar and useless one to have.
(Monkton makes the same basic point here in 2010 that there is cooling by declaring there has been cooling on the last 8 years on)
Nope, I did read it, it is just an opinion piece, useless.
Not as the scientists that did the experiment reported and other researchers mentioned.
Yes I did notice that, I was going to say that showed that you are even more clueless than I assumed but I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
That is not what they said, Terry was referring to the whole of Svensmark’s work, it has been cut to pieces already and the experiment did not deal with the upper atmosphere clouds, as noticed before and after the experiment the effect at best is very small, hardly the forcing needed to turn off the one brought by CO2.
To begin with, any cite that does not report the reality of the levels the cosmic rays are affecting the current warming is lying by omission. "It was baseless to even say “significant” on the title.
Nope, you have demonstrated so far that you only guessed those cites were excellent when it was just a binge. You are trying, unsuccessfully to make them sound helpful to your position after the fact.
Nope, the main reason why a google vomit or a binge of citations is a dishonest debating tactic is that the one making it does not have to explain why the cites are relevant, you are making others do your homework, you needed to point at the quote that you think it makes it important and then one can make a proper rebuttal, as it is, the reason why I do think it is safe to ignore him is that the scientists are saying that it is not really an important factor and he is not a scientist.
The overwhelming evidence is that politicians of the right have done this, most of the cites you have here come from right wing publications.
Read the BBC article again, the scientists do refer to the research that showed that, once again, depending on a **binge **is not a good idea.
You are trying, unsuccessfully to make them sound helpful to your position after the fact.