“Misleading” and “lying”…yep, the same stuff.
You read you say? I apologise for thinking the opposite. So why are your only answers “misleading” and “lying”?
It’s clear that “misleading” and “lying” simply mean “I disagree”.
Now, go, go. Flatter yourself thinking “he’s just an anti-science denier”…that’s always how you justify never addressing issues.
Go, go.
Nope, not doing your homework after your binge or Google Vomit. The rule is (and many dopers know it is just a polite one) is that that you link and cite what you think is important, or in this case what you think is so new, I do think you already know how that will turn out.
So now it’s not even the science, it’s a style thing. It’s nice to see that you console yourself with silly links about eating disorders, trying to be…what? cool? hip? oh-so-edgy? Apparently the biggest flaw in my arguments is using search engines and not going to a single website to find my answers.
But you said you read them anyway…and still no direct, factual, science-filled answer. Cite or not, your answer would’ve been, “it’s a known denier guy/site”.
What’s next? Complaining about my browser choice to avoid the real issue?
My car is blue, by the way, if you need other things to complain.
Meh, this is a lie, I already posted the reply by Gavin Smith showing why the Forbes blogger should be dismissed.
I don’t speak for Waldo, but if these climate models were making bona fide, interesting, accurate predictions, I would not dismiss it as “historical data.” The key question is whether the prediction was made without the benefit of hindsight. i.e. was it actually a prediction?
The trouble is that it’s too easy to cheat using this method either by tuning the model to fit historical data or by quietly discarding models which don’t fit.
You can see that this actually happens by observing that generally speaking, simulations disclosed by the IPCC fit historical data really well – even on the range of 5 to 10 years. If this was not the result of tuning, then one would expect that most of the time, the models should be able to make reasonably accurate predictions going forward. As far as I know, this just doesn’t happen.
It sure is falsifiable, I’d reply; upon having one falsifiable prediction vindicated, I in fact would have another falsifiable “prediction for the future after this” ready to go. No matter what point in the future you pick, at that point I’d have (a) historical data showing I got it right, and (b) yet another shot at getting it wrong.
It’s a way for me to keep risking being wrong. I only extrapolate falsifiable predictions from past data because the beauty of the otherwise useless alternative – making an unfalsifiable prediction – is that it lets people avoid admitting they’re wrong.
That’s what I do. The difference is, I do it by making falsifiable predictions; to all appearances, the AGW experts have concluded that future data will be predicted just as accurately and so no longer need to bother with hypothetical falsification.
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
Glad to see you acknowledging at least that you are just looking at personal experience and not history.
[/QUOTE]
In the sense that, by the time I got into this, the AGW experts had apparently concluded that no further hypotheticals involving falsification were necessary; they’d disproven the folks making global-cooling predictions back in the '70s, they’d made up their minds, the science is settled, no additional warming is necessary over a plateau of any length, no amount of cooling would defy expectations, no ugly facts could slay our beautiful theory; there was a time for all of that, and that time has now passed.
And that is a 4 level Pinocchio lie.
The best estimates show that 3 degrees centigrade of increased warming is to be expected by a doubling of the CO2, so yes, they are expecting more warming, verifications and confirmations of the progress of the changes brought by the increase of global warming gases. The theories you have to discredit are the ones from physics, AGW is just a result of them.
It’s not a lie; I genuinely hadn’t heard that prediction before. I’ve been asking you for the better part of two weeks for a falsification criterion; you’ve ducked and you’ve dodged, you’ve hurled accusations and insults, but as far as I can tell this is the first time you’ve taken a break from all of that to actually spell this out. Why didn’t you do this sooner? Why didn’t you make that post in August?
Be that as it may: “3 degrees centigrade of increased warming is to be expected”. So if we instead get a mere 0.3 degrees centigrade of increased warming – or 0.3 degrees of cooling – or anything else that falls short – then the expectation won’t be verified and confirmed, but rather the opposite; just add in a deadline for observing that expected increase and you can now supply what I’ve been requesting since before this thread started.
By the way, I don’t engage with GIGOBuster because of his past refusal to answer a reasonable question about his position.
He also has a strong tendency to respond to posts by answering arguments which haven’t been made and ignoring the actual point. I think it’s most likely because he’s just too stupid to understand the points people are making a lot of the time.
I warned you already what is the result of hanging around denialist sites. It has indeed been willful ignorance. Several of the posts I made before did include a link to all the climate myths and several reported on the estimated temperature increases.
And there is once again the refusal to see that we are dealing with probabilities, and lag time, the 3 degrees are likely, what is worrisome is that several researchers report that the temperature could reach 4 degrees or more, skeptical researchers go for the low estimates around 1 to 1.5 degrees, but they do so by eliminating or minimizing feedbacks.
But this also demonstrates that all this time you were ignorant of the scientific basis of the current warming trend, the readings of CO2 are increasing but it is not 100% certain when the full effect of the doubling will occur. It depends of factors like humans deciding at last to do a concerted effort to stop releasing greenhouse gases. So far it is safest to assume (thanks to denier politicians elected into office) that not much will be done so:
http://www.climatechangebusinessforum.com/en-us/understanding
But, usually the doubling that scientists talk about is calculated from the pre-industrial era days:
According to Hofmann, Butler, and Tans (2009) the growth rate of CO2 concentrations has been doubling about every 30 years since 1800. At this rate, CO2 concentration will reach 560 ppm (doubling pre-Industral Revolution values) by the year 2050.
If we concentrate on England alone, the best estimates point at an increase of 2 degrees centigrade by 2050
So it would look like the 3 degrees are not there? Well, leaving aside the fact that most researchers agree that a 2 degree increase would make a big mess and it is in the range predicted by most researchers, the reality is that because of the lag or inertia of the system, more warming will come, the likely 3 degree estimate includes that lag that will come if we reduce CO2 emissions severely by then. It will make the situation more bad but at least we know it will stop getting worse in the long run.
And as we could expect 700PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100 if nothing is done, it is even more likely that 4 or more degrees of increase are in store.
Even the management of the SDMB did not agree with him on this regard, so just another lie from brazil84.
As it was his lie that there are no rooftops reporting on the predictions and verifications that they do to the models, and also the fact that scientists do not primarily depend on them.
One of those rooftops is in* skeptical science *and the links to the science and organizations reporting:
You are, to put it mildly, not a wonderful judge of what a wonderful question is: in response to my statement about Randi’s debunking of a psychic, you’ve asked me twice how one recognizes an obvious fraudster. That’s only a reasonable question if you’re an idiot. You may want to stop engaging with me, because I’m not going to answer very stupid questions put to me.
Yep, one of the results of putting the ones that have information on ignore like me is that it prevents the ignorers from asking those stupid questions to the ones offering the information.
Sounds good to me. 
I don’t know why you keep assuming my position results from hanging around denialist sites; it’s probably the same reason you kept assuming I claim there’s a cooling trend. Possibly you’re even now assuming that you’ve previously replied to me by endorsing that “3 degrees” criterion? I’ve heard you sign on for a 15-20 years criterion, I’ve heard you start naming a criterion involving the 70’s levels – but I’ve never heard you name a “3 degrees” criterion, and never saw a link to a cite meant to explain your choice of same.
I don’t often bother clicking on your links, because I typically default to just believing you whenever you say one of 'em will support your claim du jour; if you’d ever mentioned the “3 degrees” criterion, the link would’ve been superfluous; so long as you didn’t mention it, I had no special reason to figure the link would either.
For the sake of completeness, though: when did you allegedly post such a link to a falsifiable prediction? Is it a long youtube video with lots of music?
I’ll take 1 to 1.5 degrees, if that’s what you’d prefer – or are you a 3 to 4 degrees guy? Either way, I take it the “lag time” is “by 2050”, yes?
So if CO2 keeps on keeping on and we’re still only down in a tenths-of-a-degree rise by 2050 – or no change, but a global temperature plateau, by 2050 – or, of course, even a bit of cooling by 2050 – then we’ve got falsification, right? (Or, if you’re signing on for the 3-4 degree prediction instead of the low estimate that minimizes feedbacks, I take it even a 1.5-degree rise would suffice for falsification?)
Ok, so any author who poses this question and writes on this topic must also be an idiot, right?
Do you consider that another reasonable question? Because from where I’m standing, that’s another very stupid question. Although I shouldn’t answer it, I’ll give you this one for free: no. I’ll even give you some elaboration for free: the phrase “in response to” in what you quoted was there on purpose, it wasn’t just random letters my fingers made in a spasm on the keyboard.
:dubious:
Where you come from is deduced by simple logic and brown M&Ms.
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/143/made-to-stick-the-telltale-brown-mampm.html
What has happened is that besides the “There is no warming since 1998” there was the “we call it climate change now”
Each of the many myths already explained to death is a very juicy brown M&M.
(Feynman similarly treated many letters with questions like that in such manner, one opens the letter only to see if there are 10:20:30 questions and then do not bother further with that letter)
That link to the climate myths has been posted many times, and I have made the point on previous discussions that to be taken seriously bring something new, not reheated baloney that was already shown to be a myth.
The 3 degree bit is under CO2 climate sensibility is low.
Notice how reflexively you go for the lower estimate, the 3 degrees is the average of the estimations, it could get worse.
As pointed out before, we are dealing with the falsification of only one aspect of the whole thing. There you can have that falsification for the sensibility of CO2. As Brickmore pointed out, we already have about .6 degrees of warming already here thanks to human CO2 emissions. The reported warming trend so far does not lead one to say that it is likely that the temperature will go down to the levels that we had on the 70’s. And that decade is mentioned because it is the one where the evidence points as the time the CO2 forcing began to overwhelm the natural ones.
Since I’m not asking a 10:20:30 question, that’s fine by me; I’ve merely been asking for clarification, and you’re now answering mine in a manner that leaves no further gulf between us – excepting, of course, one minor quibble and one major one:
I was asking which of the two predictions you preferred for your falsification criterion; the lower estimate would make it harder to falsify your prediction, which is why I “reflexively” asked whether it’s your criterion of choice. I am, if anything, even happier with you choosing a criterion that’s easier to falsify; either prediction falls apart if we only get a rise of tenths of a degree – or less – but a 3-degree claim will fail given evidence that would vindicate a 1-degree claim.
So if you’re opting for “3 degrees” (or more), then I’m satisfied…
…and then you’ve got to go and do this. So if there’s no rise – not the specified “3 degrees”, not even a rise of 0.3 degrees, maybe even a drop of 0.3 degrees – you’re saying that global warming will still remain unfalsified? C’mon, man; you were so close.
Lol, and “in response to” was part of the “topic” on which a hypothetical author might be writing. Which you now concede would not be idiotic.
Apparently it’s only when you are confronted yourself with a challenging question that you consider the question to be “idiotic.”
Anyway, it seems you have two sets of standards.
For CAGW, the predictions can repeatedly fail and the hypothesis will not be falsified. For self-proclaimed psyhics, there is no need to do further investigation of their claims because they are “obvious fraud.”
However, you refuse to set forth your criteria for “obvious fraud” – apparently it’s whatever you feel it to be. And anyone who asks you about it is an idiot.