A person can be susceptible to hearing what you want to hear, and denying what you don’t want to, based on other “information” sources too. The mindset that is so opposed to the necessary policy implications of global climate change is not confined to the American fringe, unfortunately, since the pro-ignorance PR campaign has not been confined to America.
That’s how the process of science works. :dubious: You make your models and your hypotheses fit the observed reality. Did you not cover that in school?
Now, as you acknowledge, the models do fit the data well, and are therefore as validated as validated can be. So what exactly is left for you to denigrate at this point?
That’s exactly how science works - you fit your models to reality. Was there a point you had in mind?
The evidence for them being “informed” is, well, what exactly? :dubious: Is the assertion “the deniers are actually informed” a falsifiable hypothesis, in your view? 'Cause here’s a hint - it’s been falsified pretty damn thoroughly.
What’s amazing to me is that I almost get the sense that they would rather see the planet fry and burn (if it eventually comes to that) rather than see the “other side” come up with a viable solution on “their” terms. That’s quite unbelievable when you ponder that kind of mindset for more than a moment; “Yeah our planet is dead but we sure showed those damned socialist scientists and politicians, didn’t we!”
A worrisome number of them expect to be Raptured before then, anyway. It isn’t new, either - here’s James Watt, Reagan’s Secretary of the Interior: “I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns, whatever it is we have to manage with a skill to leave the resources needed for future generations.”
I’d use the same “talking points” if anyone started making predictions – about anything – while refusing to give falsification criteria. I’d do the same thing if GIGO predicted cooling for decades to come, or if he predicted no significant change in temperature over that span of years likewise. I’d do it if I he predicted a lot of rain or very little rain for next year, asking just what he meant by either and what amount would falsify the claim. I’d do it if he predicted a yet-to-be-released movie would do well or poorly. I’d do it if he predicted he’d be rich or poor by the end of the decade. I’d do it because I want to know what’s being predicted and what’s not.
You think it’s politically-based and disingenuous, but it’s the same set of questions I ask whenever anyone makes a prediction.
My game is the opposite of that. My game is asking: what observable changes are predicted, but won’t occur if you’re wrong? My game is, I suppose, asking which of your statements you’d jettison – or what additional statement you’d add in – if the changes you anticipate don’t materialize.
[QUOTE=Lobohan]
“What? Tens of thousands of professional PhD level scientists agree on something, representing over 95% of the world’s experts on the subject? Well, just let me take a look at the data and find out where they fucked up, hyuck, hyuck.”
All because they simply will not accept a world where man can alter the atmosphere, because it either challenges their religious beliefs (God wouldn’t let that happen) or they’re just too dim to visualize how big man’s footprint is on this planet.
[/QUOTE]
Regardless of whether I’m minimally competent to “take a look at the data”, I can sure tell when someone who makes predictions refuses to make 'em falsifiable. GIGO, for whatever reason, is steadfastly limiting himself to discussing what data wouldn’t suffice to overturn the conclusions; he doesn’t go on to spell out what data would suffice. It’s not that I can’t accept a world where man can alter the atmosphere, or that I can’t visualize our footprint; it’s that people who make predictions but shy away from falsifiable ones are being too vague to be meaningful.
How can I know if he’s right, if he won’t spell out what it’d mean to be wrong?
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
Will you drop your stupid point that is not warming since 1998?
[/QUOTE]
That point was in answer to your original criterion – which you now want to drop, and with good reason; the point is stupid in exact proportion to how stupid the original criterion was. As soon as you swap in data-based criteria you think better reflect the complexity of the situation, I’ll tell you whether I believe the “not warming since 1998” point is relevant to your new falsification framework; if it’s no longer relevant, I’ll of course drop it.
What I get from that is that no, you will not drop that stupid point. But that is not my problem. Be my guest if you want to continue to sound like an idiot.
In English: I’ll replace that point with a different one if you replace your earlier criterion with one that calls for a different point.
I don’t want to say “Of course I drop that point” only to have you name a new criterion that the same point would address. If you tell me your new criterion, I’ll tell you whether I think the lack of warming since '98 is relevant to it.
Don’t just tell me to stop using '98 as a starting point unless you’re telling me what to swap in instead. I like using '98 as a starting point because it fits GIGO’s original falsification criterion, and until he supplies a replacement falsification criterion I’ve got nothing else to go on; I’ll stop using it as soon as he moves his goalpost to exclude starting from '98.
You say it’s not good enough to note it hasn’t gotten any warmer since '98? Tell me what is good enough by supplying a better falsification criterion.
Says there that it would take a couple of decades trending down before we could say the recent warming ended in 1998. So if, a couple of decades after '98, we’ve only ever gotten average global temperatures that are the same or lower – shucks, that’s GIGO’s original 20-year criterion, the one he’s already backed away from! But if you’re cool with it, I can be cool with it.
The point is that you have to show at least the smarts to be able to not to depend on an stupid point to ask a question.
The worst thing is that many already know that it is essential for your obfuscating point that the past decades be ignored and also to ignore the warming that is already here thanks to the CO2 forcing. When you continuing to believe that there was no warming since 98 it demonstrates that you will continue to ignore the evidence already presented. What you have here is an hypothesis that you think it can not be falsified… And you are basing your questions on it.
We already showed you that it can be falsified, the UN was overwhelmingly reporting about the warming trend. it would had been better that you would had pointed at the denier source that gave the idea that the UN was reporting that there was no warming, but unfortunately you had to pretend it was your own idea, in desperation you had to point at a UN report and offered a quote without context that was not really saying that there was no warming. So you still continue spewing nonsense. You are really an idiot if you think we can ignore that you are demanding falsification from others when you are 100% guilty of ignoring the evidence on why you should drop your leading question.
I ask the question with no underlying point. The question is mercifully free of context.
The question is, what hypothetical evidence could falsify your prediction?
That’s the same question I’d ask if you predicted global cooling. It’s the same question I’d ask if you predicted “a lot of rain” or “very little rain”. It’s the same question I’d ask if you predicted that the US would do better than China at the next Olympics. It’s the same question, word-for-word, that I’d ask if you made pretty much any prediction about anything: what, exactly are you predicting? How, exactly, will we know if you’re wrong?
What the heck are you talking about? It’s not that I “think it can not be falsified”, it’s that you’ve already retracted your earlier prediction – which I agree could be falsified – and haven’t yet provided a replacement prediction in kind.
As per your original criterion, that’s irrelevant. As per the replacement criterion, I don’t yet know whether it’s relevant; I haven’t heard it.
It’s not a leading question. It depends on no outside evidence. The question is, simply and only: what hypothetical evidence could falsify your prediction?
You recently informed me that it was too simple and ignores other factors. You stated, in page one of this thread, that “I just informed recently that it was too simple and ignores other factors”. I don’t give a tin shit that you go on to say I can have it if it makes me happy; if you feel it’s too simple and ignores other factors, then name a claim that isn’t too simple and doesn’t ignore other factors.
Basically one that does not depend on the stupid “it has not warmed since 1998”, it has to include at least a look at decadal variation (Whoa! look! past decades before 1998, uncanny!) and a reference to the moving average.
So far it is clear that you have problems understanding the basics of what researchers and statisticians are looking for. And this still leaves out the warming from CO2 that has been observed so far.
Of course we will see if you are capable of seeing that to acknowledge this you have to drop your stupid point.
