I hereby pit the gang of hypocritical deniers "debating" GIGObuster

[GIGObuster]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

No, I cited it in reply to Tris’ specific point – and the cited facts serve that purpose to my satisfaction. My primary concern is the falsifiability of claims; the cited facts interest me to that extent; unsurprisingly, the cited conclusions likewise interest me to the extent that they likewise involve falsifiable claims.

Uh, you **already **know that the UN uses also NASA for their reports. (It is like the schemer making them fight against each other) As pointed out many times before, the context is clear; the UN, just like NASA continues to report a warming trend. And they compare the record years only in the context of the differences between decades.

As mentioned before, you need to produce a cite from the UN claiming that there is no warming or a cooling trend. In the other thread I had no trouble finding cites that reported how misreading is to use that UN quote expecting to show them claiming that there is no warming or that there is a cooling trend.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@GIGObuster

Uh, you **already **know that the UN uses also NASA for their reports.

I did. Tris may not have, and so I mentioned it in reply to Tris’ copy-and-pasted quote.

(It is like the schemer making them fight against each other) As pointed out many times before, the context is clear; the UN, just like NASA continues to report a warming trend. And they compare the record years only in the context of the differences between decades.

Tris raised a specific point, which the UN cite addresses.

As mentioned before, you need to produce a cite from the UN claiming that there is no warming or a cooling trend. In the other thread I had no trouble finding cites that reported how misreading is to use that UN quote expecting to show them claiming that there is no warming or that there is a cooling trend.

As mentioned before, were I dealing with a white supremacist who refused to name falsification criteria I’d likewise cite a white-supremacist source that (a) offered up facts about blacks scoring as well or better than whites, even if – and perhaps especially if – that cite (b) proceeded to offer up conclusions about how that means blacks are inferior to whites. Their facts would interest me; their conclusions, less so – unless, of course, paired with falsification criteria.

[Triskadecamus]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

I did. Tris may not have, and so I mentioned it in reply to Tris’ copy-and-pasted quote.

Tris raised a specific point, which the UN cite addresses.

Actually, if you had read the page cited, and the links refered to, you would have read the lengthy discussion on methods, and uncertainties, and the implications of the differences in the three major data sets used by different reporters of world temperature. But, you had no interest in that, you were more interested in finding someone who refuted what I posted. However, you failed in that regard as well, since the UN report examines that same set of facts and confirms the irrelevance in the differences as far less than the expected error limits, and not at all indicitive of an absence of global warming.

I think your fundamental dishonesty is pretty much supported by this additional “evidence”, and I thank you for that. I am now fairly convinced that the knuckle dragging stupidity theory is unlikely.

Tris

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Triskadecamus

However, you failed in that regard as well, since the UN report examines that same set of facts and confirms the irrelevance in the differences as far less than the expected error limits, and not at all indicitive of an absence of global warming.

I’m not sure you’re reading that right; NASA holds, as you’d said, that there’s no statistically significant difference between '10 and '05 and ranks both higher than '98 – but the UN instead concludes that there’s no statistically significant difference between '10 and '05 and '98, ranking all of them together precisely because the differences between all three years are “far less than the expected error limits”.

According to NASA, the '10-'05 mark is significantly higher than the '98 mark. According to the UN, it’s not.

I think your fundamental dishonesty is pretty much supported by this additional “evidence”, and I thank you for that. I am now fairly convinced that the knuckle dragging stupidity theory is unlikely.

If you claim the cite establishes that '10 and '05 were significantly warmer than '98, then I can’t tell whether you’re dragging knuckles or being dishonest.

If, however, you want to move on to the completely unrelated question of what hypothetical evidence would be indicative of an absence of global warming, then I’d merely repeat my usual question: what needs to happen, on what timetable, to falsify your claims?

[GIGObuster]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

As mentioned before, were I dealing with a white supremacist who refused to name falsification criteria I’d likewise cite a white-supremacist source that (a) offered up facts about blacks scoring as well or better than whites, even if – and perhaps especially if – that cite (b) proceeded to offer up conclusions about how that means blacks are inferior to whites. Their facts would interest me; their conclusions, less so – unless, of course, paired with falsification criteria.

And you keep ignoring the point, like Richard Feynman would tell you we are dealing with probabilities, and so, your refusal to consider why the independent statisticians said that it was a dishonest tactic to claim that there was a warming trend on the last few years, is like a racist ignoring an anthropologist or geneticist when dealing with intelligence and race.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@GIGObuster

And you keep ignoring the point, like Richard Feynman would tell you we are dealing with probabilities, and so, your refusal to consider why the independent statisticians said that it was a dishonest tactic to claim that there was a warming trend on the last few years, is like a racist ignoring an anthropologist or geneticist when dealing with intelligence and race.

I don’t want to hear that it’s wrong to claim “there was a warming trend on the last few years” unless it’s followed up by quick mention of what would make it right. I’d hope an anthropologist or a geneticist wouldn’t merely tell a racist that he’s wrong, but why he’s wrong, by spelling out what it would take to be right.

[GIGObuster]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

I don’t want to hear that it’s wrong to claim “there was a warming trend on the last few years” unless it’s followed up by quick mention of what would make it right. I’d hope an anthropologist or a geneticist wouldn’t merely tell a racist that he’s wrong, but why he’s wrong, by spelling out what it would take to be right.

Piffle, like if there was no links to the independent report of the statisticians posted many times before, what it has to be noticed is that when someone like **Triskadecamus **declares that you are being dishonest, you should be concerned about your actions, and that includes the stupid racist equation that you are trying to pull here.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@GIGObuster

Piffle, like if there was no links to the independent report of the statisticians posted many times before, what it has to be noticed is that when someone like **Triskadecamus **declares that you are being dishonest, you should be concerned about your actions, and that includes the stupid racist equation that you are trying to pull here.

The only objectionable thing about equating your crowd to racists is that racists seem a little more forthcoming about setting out falsifiability criteria; they’ll stack the odds, they’ll set up unfair tests, but if you push 'em they’ll put their cards on the table by explaining – with a sneer, expecting it’ll never happen – what it would take to make 'em see other races as their equal. You don’t even have the guts to do that.

[GIGObuster]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

The only objectionable thing about equating your crowd to racists is that racists seem a little more forthcoming about setting out falsifiability criteria; they’ll stack the odds, they’ll set up unfair tests, but if you push 'em they’ll put their cards on the table by explaining – with a sneer, expecting it’ll never happen – what it would take to make 'em see other races as their equal. You don’t even have the guts to do that.

I already did, but you showed that you do not have the intellect to understand, to begin with, you need to falsify the 10 fingerprints of humans causing the recent warming as pointed to the OMGABC and the items mentioned by Brickmore. Because this is indeed like evolution and you are trying to discredit it by just discrediting natural selection, it does not work that way.

And what it is clear is that you do not have the guts to even look and learn how deniers are playing you like a fiddle.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@GIGObuster

I already did, but you showed that you do not have the intellect to understand, to begin with, you need to falsify the 10 fingerprints of humans causing this item and the items mentioned by Brickmore.

I’m asking about predictions and you’re talking about fingerprints. Didn’t you get the point when you were answering Bricker’s questions? I’m not asking why you think you’re right; I’m asking what needs to happen, in years to come, to prove you’re wrong. Like the man said – and it seemed to get through to you then, so I can but copy-and-paste it – “When Randi confronts a dowser, he does not compare cites showing how dowsing can’t work. He simply requires the dowser to agree, in advance, to a specific set of criteria.”

What do you claim will happen, in years to come? What do you claim won’t happen, unless you’re oh-so-very wrong?

And what it is clear is that you do not have the guts to even look and learn how deniers are playing you like a fiddle.

I’d ask the same thing of them that I ask of you: are your predictions falsifiable?

[Triskadecamus]

Every scientifically supported investigation of climate I have read supports the basic premise that the Earth’s environment is becoming more and more energetic. Most of these are also frequently annotated with references to unexpected complexities in the interactions of atmosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere. Whenever a scientist points out that it is much harder to predict measurable individual aspects of this complex phenomenon some fundamentally dishonest reviewer implies in print that that scientist does not believe in global warming. The fact that it is entirely untrue doesn’t bother the folks who never read the very difficult underlying data and theories, since they only care that thier point of view wins an argument.

So, how did all the people who made up this fantasy convince 80 species of birds to move their nesting grounds northward by several miles a year for the last thirty years? What sort of political influence, or conspiracy removed all the 66 year old ice from mountain glaciers over the last twenty years? How did the myth of global warming shift the location of specific tree population northward and to higher elevations by measured amounts over the last forty years? Are glaciers and birds, and trees part of the conspiracy?

If the age of ice in mountain glaciers around the world increased more than the number of years that pass for three or four decades, that would convince me that global warming was abating. If the ranges of living things reversed their displacement over that same time period that would convince me that global energy levels were declining.

But, I don’t think waiting 40 years to disprove the existence of a cooling trend that has not ever been documented to be occurring at all makes much sense. Perhaps we should begin searching for the aliens who are manipulating the migrations of birds, and trees. It would make exactly as much sense as what you are asking for under the guise of “falsifiable criteria.”

Hundreds of data sets, from widely divergent scientific and economic records covering more than a century have been examined, and the vast majority of them support the contention that the world is warming, and man is the most likely source of the change. Not one single world wide data set shows a trend toward cooling over the same period. None.

How can I be so sure? If there was one, the deniers and their dupes would be all over it. We would have heard!

Tris

[GIGObuster]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

I’m asking about predictions and you’re talking about fingerprints. Didn’t you get the point when you were answering Bricker’s questions? I’m not asking why you think you’re right; I’m asking what needs to happen, in years to come, to prove you’re wrong. Like the man said – and it seemed to get through to you then, so I can but copy-and-paste it – “When Randi confronts a dowser, he does not compare cites showing how dowsing can’t work. He simply requires the dowser to agree, in advance, to a specific set of criteria.”

And… what you are doing is denying that Randi also has an input on what that agreement will be, as you have already acknowledged 2 times that I have already gave a reply on the surface temperatures trends, in the end it does not matter, you do not like the answer and will continue to JAQ off.

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

I’d ask the same thing of them that I ask of you: are your predictions falsifiable?

Yes.

[I_Know_Nothing]

Global Warming Experiment #1

Summary:

Put a thermometer in an enclosed container, shine light on container, record temp.

Put CO2 in same enclosed container, shine light on enclosed container, record temp. Guess what. it’s fucking hotter

You can falsify AGW by performing this experiment and getting a cooler second temp. Good luck.

[elucidator]

My understanding is that the “falsifiable” standard is desireable, but not mandatory. If you got your theory out there, and it passes the falsifiable test, you can stop having that terrible dream where some smart-ass grad student murders your beautiful hypothesis with an ugly fact. And you wake up screaming.

Not everything in science lends itself to such a standard, and very complex systems are resistant, by their very nature. At any rate, the impression that seems to be offered is so long as the falsifiability standard is not met, it isn’t science. I think that is a wild exageration.

However, I invite correction, I am not a scientist. Might have been, were I not a mathtard, but so it goes…

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@GIGObuster

And… what you are doing is denying that Randi also has an input on what that agreement will be, as you have already acknowledged 2 times that I have already gave a reply on the surface temperatures trends

You backed away from the first one, saying “I just informed recently that it was too simple and ignores other factors”. You backed away from the second almost as quickly as you could give it, explaining that “the warming could just be going to a different location” such that “a falsification of the effects of AGW on surface temperatures does not mean that we can exhale a sigh of relief”.

So if your first test is passed, you’ve already got the “it was too simple and ignores other factors” excuse ready to go; a more complex explanation involving other factors could be involved. And if your second test is passed, you’ve already got the “warming could just be going to different location” excuse ready to go, since it only falsifies the effects of AGW on surface temperature.

On your terms, I can’t exhale a sigh of relief even if both criteria play out; your prediction will remain in place even through the worst-case scenario. What’s the analogy to Randi? A dowser who succeeds either time is genuine, but one who fails both times stays in the game?

The first time, in the end it does not matter, you do not like the answer and will continue to JAQ off.

I loved your first criterion and asked no questions until you moved the goalposts. I provisionally loved your second criterion, but explicitly spelled out a specific rider: I was waiting to hear your responses to Bricker’s follow-up; they didn’t arrive. I’m thus still waiting to hear what could hypothetically happen to falsify your claims about warming: not that a lack of warming for a certain number of years is too simple a test because it ignores other factors, not that a decline in one location doesn’t rule out warming in another location, but a prediction that can be falsified across the board.

[QUOTE=elucidator]
My understanding is that the “falsifiable” standard is desireable, but not mandatory. If you got your theory out there, and it passes the falsifiable test, you can stop having that terrible dream where some smart-ass grad student murders your beautiful hypothesis with an ugly fact. And you wake up screaming.

Not everything in science lends itself to such a standard, and very complex systems are resistant, by their very nature. At any rate, the impression that seems to be offered is so long as the falsifiability standard is not met, it isn’t science. I think that is a wild exageration.
[/QUOTE]

No, not everything in science lends itself to such a standard. No, it’s not always mandatory. But this is a case where predictions are being made about future warming; I’m merely asking for specificity about those predictions. If someone predicts, say, “a significant amount of warming in the long term”, then surely I can ask what that person means by “significant” and “long term”? (Alternatively, if a given amount of cooling is dismissed as (a) too small a change in temperature over (b) too short an amount of time, then surely it’s fair to ask what amount would suffice? Isn’t it implied just by mentioning the insufficiency?)

[GIGObuster]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

I’m thus still waiting to hear what could hypothetically happen to falsify your claims about warming: not that a lack of warming for a certain number of years is too simple a test because it ignores other factors, not that a decline in one location doesn’t rule out warming in another location, but a prediction that can be falsified across the board.

And that is as useful as asking what a prediction would falsify evolution. Once again you are coming from a flawed question expecting a limited falsification of an item you are JAQing off to falsify the whole shebang.

As Feynman explained in his famous scientific method speech at Cornell, It is you who needs to point at what will replace what the scientists have found so far. And that means that you need to look at the whole picture, of course we already know that that is deadly to your point.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@GIGObuster

As Feynman explained in his famous scientific method speech at Cornell, It is you who needs to point at what will replace what the scientists have found so far. And that means that you need to look at the whole picture

Feynman said all sorts of interesting things. “This method is based on the principle that observation is the judge of whether something is so or not. All other aspects and characteristics of science can be understood directly when we understand that observation is the ultimate and final judge of the truth of an idea. But ‘prove’ used in this way really means ‘test,’ in the same way that a hundred-proof alcohol is a test of the alcohol, and for people today the idea really should be translated as, ‘The exception tests the rule.’ Or, put another way, ‘The exception proves that the rule is wrong.’ That is the principle of science. If there is an exception to any rule, and if it can be proved by observation, that rule is wrong.”

Also: “Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is – if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it.”

You say I need to look at the whole picture? You’re the one making a whole-picture prediction; I merely want to know what would, à la Feynman, prove it wrong.

[GIGObuster]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Feynman said all sorts of interesting things. “This method is based on the principle that observation is the judge of whether something is so or not. All other aspects and characteristics of science can be understood directly when we understand that observation is the ultimate and final judge of the truth of an idea. But ‘prove’ used in this way really means ‘test,’ in the same way that a hundred-proof alcohol is a test of the alcohol, and for people today the idea really should be translated as, ‘The exception tests the rule.’ Or, put another way, ‘The exception proves that the rule is wrong.’ That is the principle of science. If there is an exception to any rule, and if it can be proved by observation, that rule is wrong.”

Also: “Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is – if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it.”

You say I need to look at the whole picture? You’re the one making a whole-picture prediction; I merely want to know what would, à la Feynman, prove it wrong.

And so you need to deny that scientists have investigated and tested this for more than 60 years.

Feynman is actually describing what the climate researchers are doing and did. It is your job to prove them wrong, not asking the equivalent of “Hey Mr. Feynman, Why don’t you try the combination 10:20:30?”

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@GIGObuster

And so you need to deny that scientists have investigated and tested this for more than 60 years.

Feynman is actually describing what the climate researchers are doing and did. It is your job to prove them wrong.

It’s your job, when making predictions, to explain what hypothetical evidence would in fact “prove them wrong.” It does no good for me to name the hypothetical evidence that would convince me you’re wrong; if it eventually comes to pass, you can then merely insist that it’s not good enough to convince you, and we can repeat the process indefinitely so long as I keep saying I’m satisfied and you keep saying you aren’t.

But if you ever spell out what would satisfy you, my job becomes possible – and if you don’t, then what the hell are you actually predicting?

not asking the equivalent of “Hey Mr. Feynman, Why don’t you try the combination 10:20:30?”

But I’m not proposing an alternative combination; by analogy, I’m merely asking what would falsify a prediction that he’ll get it open.

[GIGObuster]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

It’s your job, when making predictions, to explain what hypothetical evidence would in fact “prove them wrong.”

Read the history, there are already many examples of tests they passed already, you as a critic has to prove them wrong now.

Or continue to play the fool, I will not mind either choice you take.

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

But I’m not proposing an alternative combination; by analogy, I’m merely asking what would falsify a prediction that he’ll get it open.

As many that knew him would tell you his chances were much better than the 10:20:30 guy, and as Feynman put it, you are just launching alternative combinations of 3 numbers… when the scientist has been dealing with a safe with 5 numbers.