Why not start with post #39 in this thread:
“If we do not curb greenhouse gas emissions over the next fifty years, the climate system (and related localized weather patterns) will show observable changes”
Ok, is that pretty much it, or is there more?
I take it you have no objections then.
Certainly, but NASA could specify any number of events that may or may not meet TOWP’s standards of scientific rigor. For example, they could say “The prediction of our models will be proven wrong if the Yankees win the pennant this year.” The factoring of baseball stats in an astronomical model would rightly cause someone to question the entire model, so the mere presence of falsification criteria doesn’t necessarily make or break a prediction. I’m just curious what sorts of criteria TOWP would accept from NASA. Or maybe he’d be fine with the baseball one, I don’t know.
You are then doing it wrong, what are you doing wasting your time here when even tobacco companies are looking for a single reason why cigarettes cause cancer or an specific reason?
The reason why scientists were certain cigarettes caused cancer is because there are several lines of research that pointed at cigarettes as the most likely cause. Tobacco companies just pointed out at the lack of a single reason in cigarettes that caused cancer and so they got away with murder for decades and even the courts agreed with them. The reality is that even today new causes for cancer are being found coming from cigarettes so it is clear that you would had sided with the tobacco companies if we continue to follow your “logic”.
I’d expect that NASA would reply that we should now take action to divert the asteroid, in which case we’ll of course never actually get to see the counterfactual play out – adding that, yes, if we instead simply let things keep on keeping on, then X and Y and Z will happen if we’re right, but won’t happen if we’re wrong. GIGO refuses to likewise make even that modest claim when predicting future warming; he merely says that if we do nothing to avert it, then – decade after decade after decade after decade after decade of cooling wouldn’t hypothetically falsify his claims.
Exactly right. Getting the falsification criterion is the first step; checking it for something as irrelevant as the Yankees winning the pennant is, presumably, the second. But absent the first step, we can’t even yet get to the second.
[QUOTE=Rhythmdvl]
“If we do not curb greenhouse gas emissions over the next fifty years, the climate system (and related localized weather patterns) will show observable changes”
[/QUOTE]
My reply to you then, which I’ll copy-and-paste now, is that “I merely want to know which observable changes are being predicted; assuming they’ll come to pass, I see no reason to disagree with any of your points about the fundamental science … there’s entirely too much unspecified wiggle room in ‘observable changes’. Double the rainfall? That’s an observable change. Halve it? Also an observable change. Heck, observable global cooling would be a change, sure as it’d be a big observable change if average global temperatures remained the same for decades while hurricanes stopped altogether. On predictions, I’m after specifics rather than generalities.”
Of course I object. I asked for a summary of the “basic science.” You set forth a few points and characterized them as a “start,” as if something might be missing.
Is that your summary or is there something else you want to include?
It’s a simple question.
Who needs a reason why? I just need to know that it happens, not why it happens.
Why? I would’ve – and did – side with the folks who made falsifiable predictions about cigarettes causing cancer.
Right, this is why I’m impressed with GIGO’s ability to keep up with the inanities.
Go start your children smoking. There are no falsifiable predictions that should prevent you. Lots of science out there regarding carcinogens, but there are plenty of people who smoked well into late life without any harm. There’s no way to predict what form of–if any–disease someone will get. There just are no specifics.
You, Brazil, etc. are being pitted not for an argument or generalized disagreement, but for defying rationality and basic logic. It’s repugnant.
What are you talking about? Don’t confuse me with GIGO; I can boldly make a falsifiable prediction right now about whether smoking causes cancer.
I can lay out a claim that’s plenty specific enough to satisfy me. How specific do you need it?
:shrug:
I’m defying your wilful ignorance. You claim that CAGW is based on “basic science” taught in high school. And yet you can’t even summarize this “basic science”
All you can do is throw out a few points but you are unable to say if anything is missing.
As noted before, you are the one who is ignorant.
Then you need to look up “rigorous”. Hint: control group; double-blind; multiple attempts; multi-stage.
Not correct. Astrology and telekinesis have been falsified over and over and over again, meaning each time we need to take it less and less seriously, until we reach the point of diminishing returns, where it doesn’t really make sense to keep trying to falsify it. If something major happens that calls this into question, we can design a new experiment, but for now, there’s not really much reason to keep trying.
It’s the precise opposite of AGW.
What’s the “something major” that would call AGW into question?
Now I’m just pointing and laughing at you.
Fortunately, anyone with an eighth grade education in science, math, and reading is as well. No exceptions, unless their parents taught them to be nice to the mentally deficient. Or, of course, if all they have is some bizarre political agenda that holds as a tenet fucking over someone else.
How bizarre. Just a few short posts ago you were saying my approach left me intentionally ignorant on only one point; you heard the results it gets the rest of the time and based your objection solely on me treating GIGO the same way the same way I treat everyone else who offers up predictions. And now, for some reason, you’ve – shifted?
Ok, I will accept your definition. So what? I didn’t claim that Randi’s experiment was rigorous.
And as I pointed out, the exact same thing would apply if the experiment had been done with control groups, multiple trials, and so forth.
No they haven’t, at least according to your approach. All one needs to do is adjust the hypothesis a bit each time. According to you, “that’s how science works.”
Oh, and you didn’t answer my question: How does one know if somebody is an “obvious liar and fraudster”? This is a serious question.
No, I shifted a long time ago. From “oh, he seems to have honest questions…” to “ah, he’s a denier. Let me stick with it for a few more posts, maybe he isn’t … no, wait, he is. Oh well, no use trying to discuss things with him; I might as well try and talk to a birther.”
An unsurprising response from a wilfully ignorant individual like yourself, i.e. no response on the actual substance. Responding to the substantive question might expose your ignorance to yourself.
Point fail.
Just as I suspected, it is just because you say so, in real life there was no specific reason, we are getting there, but it depends on the kind of cancer.
That’s nice, you did it with the preponderance of evidence, not with just a 10:20:30 question and you followed the advice of the medical experts.
Why are you not following the advice of climate experts?