Which specific points are you talking about? I’ve already disputed the ones I want to. I have no interest in making some sort of global declaration on your posts; I neither agree nor disagree with “your posts.” But if you think there’s some specific point I’ve not addressed, feel free to say it again. If it’s substantive, and not some stupid question about what constitutes “obvious fraud” or whatever, I’ll address it, or point you to where I already did.
I suppose it would be. But let’s be clear about the 10 fingerprints:
- CO2 levels are rising.
- Specifically, it’s carbon from fossil fuels.
- Oxygen levels are declining.
- There’s also been a rise in carbon in coral records.
- Less heat is escaping out to space at specific wavelengths.
- More heat is returning in downward radiation.
- The planet warms faster at night than during the day.
- There’s cooling in the upper atmosphere.
- There’s been an observed rise in the tropopause.
- The ionosphere has cooled.
Assume for the sake of argument that none of those are falsified but the planet gets no warmer – possibly getting cooler? – for decades and even centuries to come. Assume, in the alternative, that some or all of those ten get falsified and the planet steadily gets a lot warmer.
Are you saying that your warming prediction would prove true in the first case, and false in the second?
You just want to press on the definition of unlikely uh? 
It would be extremely unlikely, before that happens many of the lines of evidence would already had fallen and would be falsified, but if we go to fantasy land, that assumes none of those items are falsified, then there is something wrong with the theory and should be modified and eventually rejected as the data would no longer fit the estimated projections.
If all of them do get falsified and the planet gets a lot warmer that also falsifies the theory as then a different reason takes its place, just like Feynman said, and as he also said, many times the idea that is proposed to replace it is not good so until that unlikely thing happens I would worry that the current scientists and experts investigating the issue are getting it wrong.
Ummm, the 3 points you quoted in Post #317. Except that I accidentally used the word “someones” instead of “sometimes.”
The “obvious fraud” standard question is very stupid and an irrelevancy, so I’m not going to dignify it with a response. As for the others, post 292 comprises my answer. A “yes/no” answer that you seek would be as misleading as you found my answer to your “do you disagree?” question, so I won’t provide it. If post 292 confuses you, please explain why.
i.e. you don’t want to admit that your point about “obvious fraud” was stupid.
Lol, I assume you mean Post 293. Anyway, I don’t engage with people who refuse to answer reasonable questions about their positions.
You have evaded and dodged and weaved enough already. Goodbye.
That is an entirely reasonable position to take. The evasion and deception and outright batshit insanity some people spew forth and then consider words of gold, it makes me wonder at their sanity.
Says the one that even the most respected dopers do not think that he shoots straight.
Thanks. By the way, I basically agree with the point you made in the “science denialist” thread. When you think about it logically, it should hardly come as a surprise if ideas which are popular at the moment later turn out to be dead wrong. And yet people seem to think that we’ve Finally Figured Things Out; the Science is Settled; etc.
100 years ago scientists found about CO2 and that it could cause warming, scientists on the whole thought that there was no trouble as the levels were so small. That was the popular view until the 50s-60s when suddenly the unpopular view that emissions would make a problem was supported by evidence and confirmed during the next 50 years.
Even on history our Nowhere man is wrong.
Using realclimate to bolster your belief system is like shooting yourself in the foot at the start of a fight.
Meh, as we have seen they were on the money regarding the latest denialist myth about the CERN cloud research eliminating global warming. And the contributors are climate experts currently involved in research.
You are not capable of even identifying good sources from the bad.
Yep–this is the point where you declare victory in your fantasy battle, because you think that the Death by a Thousand Questions is a useful conversational gambit. Enjoy your fantasy victory! The rest of us note that, given complex answers to questions, you respond with more games, instead of responding with substance.
Well, I didn’t mean the majority of physics is wrong by any means, it is more the fuzzy edges and unknowns all around that still are somewhat shocking to find how little we know about our world, our Universe, and our fellow human beings.
This doesn’t even come close to your very own standards. You need to read a historical perspective on smoking and cancer research. Epidemiological studies on smoking and cancer didn’t even begin until people happened to notice a rise in lung cancer. This correlated with a rise in smoking. There were alternative hypotheses such as pollution and the simple fact that people were living longer due to antibiotics. Epidemiology is useful but the clincher and proof of principle was in experimentation.
You should also google falsifiable and climate change or global warming. It will direct you to many posts at Realclimate that spell it out very nicely for you. Climate science is not just based on models. It is also backed up by extensive experimentation.
I should be surprised that you haven’t looked up these things on your own, but I’m not surprised at all.
Realclimate is a joke. Please stop embarrassing yourself.
In your view, what are 2 or 3 of the more compelling experimental results which back up CAGW? (Assuming you believe that CAGW has been backed up by experimental results.)
Like if your lousy opinion has merit, RealClimate contributors are scientists, virtually all denialist sources are peddling pseudoscience and even misquoting scientific papers to make more myths.
Oops, that’s right. It’s a cite with scientists talking about science. My bad!
There is a prime example of unscientific writing, published by “experts”, who simply made that up. Not only is it impossible to prove the statement, it’s impossible to disprove it. Because that isn’t a scientific statement.
It’s opinion, it’s a conclusion, it’s a belief. It’s no surprise that the gullible who “want to believe” lap up such swill and decry all who don’t march lockstep with them as “deniers”. Such is fanaticism, and religion.