As pointed many times before, falsifications are a dime a dozen, but the likelihood of you guys getting vindication is unlikely, and as the most important skeptical scientists are getting themselves discredited lefty and right, it is becoming even extremely unlikely.
Did Plass have a paradigm shift a la Kepler from circular-orbits-and-Pythagorean-solids to elliptical-with-the-sun-in-one-focus? Or was he a pioneer? If it’s only the latter, then you missed my quote by a mile and allow me to suggest a couple of lessons on Reading Comprehension.
If it’s the former a will fully confess my ignorance.
By the way, I looked at theRealclimate artilce quoted in the Plasswikipedia article and loved the phrase “Today, our current best guess for the forcing due to 2xCO2 is around 4 W/m2”; you need chutzpah the size of the moon to mandate economic and social changes when you get to “our best guess”. Also, the fact that the uncertainty of “relevant numbers from the IPCC AR4 are a climate sensitivity of 2 to 4.5ºC”. Such gigantic uncertainty when the CO2 effect is close to 1 is so nice.
The sift was that up till then, many scientists thought that CO2 absorption rates were such that the increase of CO2 would not be a problem, After his research showed what was the actual ways CO2 absorbs and releases the heat then scientists began to realize it was a problem.
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2010/1/carbon-dioxide-and-the-climate
Actually your last bit ignores feedbacks to get the 1 degree, it is huge lie of omission.
And Feynman would still tell you that guessing is not bad in science, what counts is that once you do the experiences and collect the data if the data does not support your guess then it is a wrong one, so far Plass is more on the money and he even predicted the ocean acidification issue, that alone it is reason why we should mandate economical changes.
I’m not sure what your point is. In your view, could a situation ever arise where you start with a reasonable hypothesis – perhaps it’s even the best hypothesis – it gets falsified by the data, and the reasonable thing to do is to throw it out completely as opposed to simply tweaking it?
Throw it out in one fell swoop? Not really. But if you start with a theory that explains all the data, and you test it with an experiment in which the hypothesis is falsified, then you re-evaluate: what is now the best explanation for the entire data set, including this new data point? If you have a lot of data already, chances are that a tweak to your current theory will be the best explanation.
If, however, every experiment you perform to test the theory turns out to falsify the hypothesis, then at some point you accumulate enough data in contradiction of the theory that a tweak to the theory no longer becomes economical or possible. At that point, your theory is no longer something that explains all the data and satisfies Occam’s Razor.
If you agree with that assessment, then we can move on from there to discuss what this has to do with AGW.
Even high schoolers know this one:
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml
The answer is that it would be also unscientific to assume right away that the best hypotheses is incorrect after data collected one time is contradicting it, you should check if something is wrong and calculate again, specially after years of corroborating experiments elsewhere, if this was not the case then John Christy would not had found later that he was wrong regarding the satellite temperatures that did not match the predictions, as it turned out, adjustments dealing with the position and timing of the satellites explained the discrepancy away and Christy did the correct thing then by telling all that their early report used so much by deniers was wrong.
I’m still not sure what your point is. First you deny (in lukewarm terms) that such a situation can arise, and then you describe a situation where just that happens. Also, it sounds like you are conceding that whenever a hypothesis is falsified, one needs to consider the possibility that more than just tweaking is necessary.
Let’s do this: Do you disagree with anything I have said on this subject? If so, what?
I’m not sure what you mean by “AGW,” but I’ve laid out my position on CAGW on my blog which is brazil84 at wordpress. I explain exactly why I am satisfied it is a hoax.
Is “in one fell swoop” an idiom you’re familiar with? It looks to me like, yet again, you’re trying to nitpick the words I use to such an irritating degree that I give up on arguing with you, and then you can claim victory. I never denied that such a situation can arise, and it’s a bizarre reading of what I wrote to say that I did, and I don’t have any interest in arguing with you if that’s what you think an argument consists of. If you want to talk substance, go for it; but don’t try to bait me into trivialities any more.
Did Plass change his own personal paradigm? The fact the he changed other people’s paradigms is not the very clear, primary-level point I was making about Kepler’s changing what he not only thought was right but which he endaevored to prove for sevral years.
MY bit? You mean the quote from your favourtie website.
This is what it says
So my 1 instead of 1.2 is not a huge lie of ommision, the effects of a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels is about 1, without any feedbacks.
Guessing is not badscience, of course. Lots of science starts with guessing.
However, when the results of your guessing mandate economic changes in the trillions of dollars, you’d better not br guessing much. If oyu want to use funds to fight ocean acidification instead of providing clean water, i won’t accept such gigantic uncertainties.
[Quote about acidfication]
(CO2 Science)(from a horrible anti-science, pro-greed, pro-death, anti-environment, antí-people place.)
Another quotefrom that more-evil-than-Hitler-to-the-Stalinth-power place about acidification
And that would show what? Kepler is recognized for eventually getting it right.
Not all are fortunate enough to live long enough to notice were were they wrong, but the history of the discovery of the discovery of global warming shows that others also were wrong but helped immensely on the progress.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
You really have reading comprehension problems uh? You are once again are pointing at the estimation with no feedbacks added, when the feedbacks are added then many lines of evidence point at 3 degrees of an increase on temperature. You are cherry picking the quote to make others think that climate scientists are saying that only 1 degree is coming thanks to the doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial years.
When the IPCC projects the following as likely, very likely, or virtually certain changes in extreme events and associated effects between now and 2100, they are talking about 80%, 90% and even higher probabilities for abrupt changes:
http://epa.gov/climatechange/effects/extreme.html
[quote=“Aji_de_Gallina, post:289, topic:595281”]
[Quote about acidfication]
(CO2 Science)(from a horrible anti-science, pro-greed, pro-death, anti-environment, antí-people place.)
Indeed:
Indeed again:
BTW I already did the unfair thing, (yes, for some reason many deniers do think it is unfair to do this) I checked their best reference from the last cite that came from a published scientific journal. It does not say what they claim it does.
Yes.
Nonsense, I haven’t nitpicked you now or previously. If I have somehow missed your main point, while focusing on some minor error, please feel free to explain.
Then you could have said “yes” in response to my question.
Do you disagree with any of the (substantive) points I have made on this issue? If so, what?
I think I’ve answered this several times, but let’s try again:
If you’re proposing that situations will arise in which, based on a lot of data, you make the best theory possible, and then an experiment to test that hypothesis gets falsified, and rather than trying to modify the theory you should throw the whole thing out and start over based on that single experiment, I have trouble imagining that that ever happens. Yes, I disagree.
If you’re proposing the same thing, except that experiment after experiment fails to support the theory, even with modifications, and that eventually the most economical explanation requires a wholesale rejection of the original theory, then no, I don’t disagree.
So you are saying that my posts have been ambiguous and you do not understand what my position is?
We’ve been over this.
You – for reasons that possibly made no sense at the time, and apparently look even worse in retrospect – declared that 15-20 years with no warming would suffice. I’m not the one who introduced that 10:20:30 point; you named it, and I merely repeated it back when pointing out that the UN found “no statistically significant difference between global temperatures in 2010, 2005 and 1998 … The difference between the three years is less than the margin of uncertainty (± 0.09°C or ± 0.16°F) in comparing the data … the differences between the three years are not statistically significant”.
If you hadn’t put that 10:20:30 goalpost down in the first place, it’s entirely possible you would’ve never heard the “limited 10:20:30 point” from me in reply. You eventually moved that goalpost, but it’s beyond disingenuous to criticize a response because it answers the question you – for no good reason – decided to ask.
If you move that goalpost to a new 10:20:30 point, I’ll address that one – at which you’ll probably criticize me for introducing a 10:20:30 point, overlooking that once again I’m merely working with your criterion of choice.
You made the idiot point; I replied to it. You’ve dropped it, so I’m delighted to do likewise. If you make another idiot point, I’ll reply to it as before.
Er, no; you mentioned rather the opposite of that. The above statement would mean that, without backtracking, no hypothetical future evidence could falsify your predictions – and we know that’s not the case, as you finally admitted when discussing the unlikely event of an ice age materializing: “if it does, by it would already had disproved AGW”.
So we know that some future evidence “would already had disproved AGW” all by itself, in that hypothetical. I’m thus merely asking what evidence would have “already” done that, in such a scenario: I’d call it a falsification criterion, you’re free to call it a 10:20:30 point, but either way I’m asking for yours rather than supplying one of my own.
Name it and end my objection.
You seem to be confusing two items, here. I don’t give a tin shit how unlikely you claim it would be to falsify it; my “wiggle room” and “walking away” objections rest on impossibility rather than improbability.
When you say “I just informed recently that it was too simple and ignores other factors” without naming a criterion that isn’t too simple and doesn’t ignore other factors, your wiggle room is 100%. When you say that “the warming could just be going to a different location” without mentioning how that could be ruled out, your wiggle room is 100%. “As pointed out before, we are dealing with the falsification of only one aspect of the whole thing” – that’s 100% wiggle room for falsifying “the whole thing”.
If you name any of the above criteria, and I eventually point out that it came to pass, there is a 100% chance that you can then say your criterion of choice “was too simple and ignores other factors” – or crisply reply that “the warming could just be going to a different location” – or sneeringly explain that it’s “only one aspect of the whole thing”.
I want to know what you think will falsify “the whole thing”.
And that ignorance of yours is what I wanted to show to others, giving a shit about the odds is important also.
The rest of your tirade is just whining.
No problem with me. 
My first step is asking what future evidence could possibly prove your predictions wrong. If your answer is “none”, then I don’t need to get to the second step of considering the odds; the stated impossibility is already the all-important point.
If you ever supply an answer for the first step – a falsification criterion that could come to pass – you could then mention “the odds” and call me out for treating something important as unimportant. But so long as you don’t even lay out a possible falsification, follow-up discussion of what’s probable is irrelevant by way of preposterous.
And they were already mentioned many times, but you are even denying that there are many lines of evidence that need to be falsified. As several already have been pointed at, your complains are indeed just whining.
Pardon? I’m not denying that many lines of evidence need to be falsified; if you want to lay out a separate criterion for each one, that’s absolutely fine. I have no problem with you specifying that your prediction of “warming” means that any one of six (or sixteen, or sixty) things will happen – such that all of them need to fail to materialize to prove your prediction wrong.
I’m merely asking what hypothetical evidence needs to appear to prove your prediction is wrong; you can clarify your prediction of “warming” by naming as many different pieces of necessary evidence you want; just name 'em, is all.
Not going to happen. If you actually say what you are talking about, then people can quite rightly challenge you. Best to stay vague and insult your opponents.