His job is not to prove it wrong. He has no interest in scientific examination; his job is to relentlessly yammer on pseudo logical sound bites to allow a huge number of willfully ignorant followers to say to each other, and anyone who will listen:" “See, global warming ended in 1998!”
He might be doing it for his own purposes, but probably it is just a way to make himself seem important to easily swayed people who thrive on fear of intellect and knowledge. He doesn’t want to do research; he simply wants to appear to someone to have refuted research done by others. What he lacks is any sort of factual basis for his objections. Evidence is unimportant to his purpose, simple assertion is sufficient. So, he claims that references to data collected and published don’t qualify as facts to him, and therefore he need not know any facts himself. This is a tired and familiar form of anti-intellectualism that has become very popular. It makes him feel important, and impresses his associates, for as long as they share his willing ignorance.
But, as I mentioned, I think his ignorance is feigned. I find it much more likely that it is willful dishonesty for the purpose of self-aggrandizement. Fairly sad, really, if it wasn’t so pernicious.
I’m not asking what falsifiable predictions came true in the past; I wouldn’t dream of trying to prove them wrong. I’m asking what falsifiable predictions are currently pending and will prove true or false in the future. (You are predicting something in days yet to come, aren’t you?)
Your analogy is flawed, in that I’m not launching alternative combinations of either the 3-number or 5-number variety.
[QUOTE=Triskadecamus]
His job is not to prove it wrong. He has no interest in scientific examination; his job is to relentlessly yammer on pseudo logical sound bites to allow a huge number of willfully ignorant followers to say to each other, and anyone who will listen:" “See, global warming ended in 1998!”
[/QUOTE]
That’s nonsense; if GIGO is obliging enough to name a falsification criterion that makes '98 irrelevant, then I’ll relentlessly yammer on about a completely different point if that replacement set of circumstances comes to pass. If, say, he spells out we need actual cooling instead of a lack of warming, then the lack of warming since '98 becomes irrelevant; we’ll need X amount of cooling over Y amount of years, for whatever X and Y he chooses.
Again, that’s simply not true; if GIGO – or you, or anyone else – would post a falsification criterion that hinges on evidence, then such evidence would be utterly important to my purpose, sure as simple assertion would of course be insufficient.
If you want “a tired and familiar form of anti-intellectualism”, I recommend making predictions that can’t be falsified; it might make you feel important, and it might impress folks who share a willing ignorance about the worthlessness of such predictions, but it’s hollow at the core. If no hypothetical facts can falsify your claims, then you’re the one who makes it so a skeptic “need not know any facts himself” – because you’ve made the facts irrelevant.
I’m not ignoring that; I merely don’t see that it grants a blank check to all future predictions, which have to stand or fall as the evidence appears to vindicate or falsify each one of 'em.
I don’t use 1998 to claim a cooling trend.
You’re actually quoting me as saying the lack of warming since '98 doesn’t prove a cooling trend – in the same post where you ask me to drop the opposite point? Hey, “be my guess” at failing to get the point, buddy.
After 60 years and the recent discredit of deniers, skepticals scientists, and Waldo
I do not think you are on any solid footing to say this.
But it will do until I plug something else in uh? Nah as Feynman said you are still going for the 10:20:30 discussion method.
We are still trying to find evidence that you are doing so, so far you seem to be wary of disappointing any followers of yours, as no matter how many times I explained how stupid using the point it was in the past, you still continued to use it even on the last tread, I can not give you a blank check on that :), you need to show that you understand why it was stupid to use it in the first place. And if you don’t, it does not matter what you are saying here, you will use it again.
Not that I would be worried that you will continue to show your stupidity again and again.
So long as you feel the footing’s not solid enough to make falsifiable predictions, you’re not predicting much of anything.
I don’t know what the heck you’re talking about; I simply don’t claim a cooling trend, and you keep claiming that I do; there’s nothing else to it.
As a response to your initial falsification criterion, there was nothing stupid about it; if your initial falsification criterion happened to be stupid, it’s unsurprising that a response predicated on such would unfortunately suffer along with it. And in the absence of a replacement falsification criterion, I use it out of sheer inertia – but if you could supply a better criterion, one that makes the lack of warming since '98 irrelevant, it would indeed be stupid of me to use it. So supply that criterion and dry up the objection!
Yeah, we know already that you fall back then for the “there is no warming trend since X”, it is also bananas.
Already did, this is now a demonstration to all of your dishonesty. And the independent statisticians support the position that is is dishonest to see trends that way. And the UN and the climate researchers report a warming trend.
Even on this specific subject this attempt at finding a falsification of the CO2 warming effects over the surface temperatures is dumb.
But that is what I wanted to demonstrate anyhow. So keep digging.
Hey, if you’re content to make that disclaimer clear every time you predict global warming – that you’re of course not actually predicting any further warming, and are in fact sounding the alarm that we could well be in for decade after decade after decade after decade after decade of cooling consistent with your predictions – then “whine” doesn’t begin to describe my response; “nodding with satisfaction,” maybe.
It’s not that I “fall back then”. It’s that you keep getting the claim wrong, because you’re not terribly bright, and when called out on it you “fall back then” to a different argument, without admitting your mistake. And if you can’t even admit so obvious and immediate a mistake, what hope is there for your far-flung predictions?
Like I’d said, after moving the goalposts away from your original prediction you refused to put down new ones that would truly falsify your predictions; you only went so far as to name a criterion with a built-in “the warming could just be going to a different location” fallback position, without spelling out how we could falsify that next crucial step. And as for whether “is is dishonest to see trends that way”, I keep telling you that I don’t claim there’s a cooling trend; that’s pretty much the extent of my comments on the subject; whatever trend you think I’m seeing, I advise you to take another look.
Of course there was nothing on my reply to deduce that, but we already know how dishonest you are.
“immediate a mistake”? This just exudes dishonesty as it is used to avoid dealing with the reply. (Regardless of the version of the myth you are using, it was already dealt with before)
You are stuck in 1998, there is no need to make a next step with you as you will continue to use the myth “out of sheer inertia”.
The point here is that you are still thinking that an out of context quote is good grounds for continue to peddle the 1998 myth, and then you compund the problem by ignoring that you are implying an even bigger myth, that there is a single bullet that will bring the AGW theory down.
As mentioned before this is like evolution, and the deniers are now reaching for the same bag of debating tricks as creationists do.
I’m not a scientist either. (Well, I had the job title “Senior Computer Scientist” but that’s just a euphemism for “computer hacker with gray hair.” :smack:) But I have worked with signals with high noise components, and patterns in which there were things we knew we didn’t know (and even things we didn’t know that we didn’t know ) so my intuition tells me something about this sort of “falsifiability”, though I am happy to listen to a real scientist articulate the situation better. (After all, Waldo does have a point: scientists constantly speak of falsifiability.)
But I want to distance myself from the other non-scientists in this debate. I come here to learn. Some come here to trot out over and over and over and over some “make predictions” dogma they learned in 8th grade and pretend they need to teach science to the scientists. Soon we’ll see the syllogism:
[ul][li]People called Copernicus, Galileo and Darwin crackpots, but their ideas were vindicated.[/li][li]People call me a crackpot.[/li][li]Therefore I will be vindicated.[/li][/ul]
(Among other flaws, the named scientists were actually highly respected by their peers.)
I explained that six heads in a row would disprove a Fair Coin hypothesis in the same sense that five more cool years would “disprove global warming.” This was ignored.
I explained that the chance of “disproof” is more than 5% if one is allowed to pick and choose from more than one 95%-confident predictions. This was beyond their arithmetic know-how.
Gigo, we admire your indefatigability. But some people just don’t want to learn.
Oh? Here’s the first sentence of your current criterion: “At its simplest, the future would show that, besides not warming, it would cool down to levels like on the 70’s as the current evidence shows what the temperature should be with no human made CO2 in the atmosphere.” I therefore “deduce” that if it cools down decade after decade after decade after decade after decade, but doesn’t reach “levels like on the 70’s”, your prediction isn’t falsified.
That’s why, shortly after you posted that criterion, I copy-and-pasted your “levels like on the 70’s” quote and asked:* “Correct me if I’m wrong: you’re now claiming that if the planet gets no warmer, and maybe cooler, from now until 2018 – or 2028, or 2038, or 2048, or 2058, or 2068, or 2078, or 2088, or 2098, or 2108, or 2118 – then claims about global warming stand; it needs to cool all the way down to the '70s levels to falsify the claims.”*
I don’t see that you objected to my characterization then. I don’t see how you could object to it now; you’re merely predicting that it won’t cool down to “levels like on the 70’s”, which means anything short of that qualifies.
It doesn’t exude dishonesty; I’m accusing you of dishonesty. I don’t claim there’s a cooling trend; you for some reason keep claiming that I do; you asked me to stop claiming there’s a cooling trend in the same post where you quoted me saying the opposite; your mistake was therefore both obvious and immediate.
How many bullets do you want? Supply a series of if/then predictions, if you think that’s the only way to work a complex enough falsification.
[QUOTE=septimus]
I explained that six heads in a row would disprove a Fair Coin hypothesis in the same sense that five more cool years would “disprove global warming.” This was ignored.
[/QUOTE]
It’s not ignored; it’s just incomplete. If you say that six heads in a row wouldn’t disprove one hypothesis any more than five more cool years wouldn’t disprove global warming, then you’re spelling out half of an interesting statement; you’re telling me what’s not good enough without going on to mention what would be good enough. I merely await the rest.
I won’t go that far – but I’d sure like you to imagine someone who goes even further. Imagine a bona fide crackpot with an 8th-grade education shows up hereabouts with hopes of falsifying, say, Einstein. “Hey,” he writes, “I’ve heard that Einstein said no mass can be accelerated to the speed of light in a vacuum; what hypothetical evidence could falsify that conclusion?”
Possibly you’d mock him. Probably you’d mock him. References could be made, accompanied with insults aplenty, to how the assorted claims have shown off their explanatory power by passing various predictive tests. But amidst all the accusations of stupidity and dishonesty, I’d like to think that any of us could in fact answer the question with a minimum of fuss – patiently explaining not just what you predict will happen as a solid object gets closer and closer to a certain number of meters per second and why, but adding quick and derisive mention that getting some X up to Y speed would do it.
How would we deal with some crackpot bent on falsifying Fermat’s Last Theorem? Presumably we’d smirk at the very idea, and link to a cited site on Andrew Wiles after spelling out how many experts spent how much time on it before that – but surely we could spare the guy ten seconds along the way to mention that finding an “a” and a “b” and a “c” that fit the equation for any “n” greater than 2 would suffice?
If someone asked about falsifying the claim that a naked man could survive unassisted in the airless vacuum of outer space – look, we may well heap scorn on the guy for asking about something so obvious, but surely we’d spell out just what we’re predicting by naming the equally obvious hypothetical evidence that could falsify it?
And if global warming is too complex to be summed up in a single falsifiable prediction, is it too complex to be summed up in two, or in ten, strung together in series, each conditionally hinging on the one that came before? I’m merely asking what’s being predicted when “warming” is predicted; if that can’t be specified, then what exactly is being predicted?
What would happen if you tried this approach with astrology? Or psychic phenomenon?
Here’s an entertaining video where Randi debunks a claimed psychic:
Basically, when the psychic is unable to perform his trick under controlled circumstances, he claims that a static charge generated by the styrofoam peanuts is interfering with his abilities.
In effect, he has modified his hypothesis so that the experiment no longer falsifies it. I’m sure you can see that there is a philosophical problem with this approach.
Fundamentally, is the CAGW hypothesis any different?
You’re addressing none of the specific points in the post – whether I’m right about your “70’s” requirement, and whether you’re wrong to say I claim there’s a cooling trend, and all the rest – to merely declare all of it whining? Sounds like we could sum up your approach as “worthless”.
As pointed out, “you are stand” with everyone who makes predictions but refuses to make 'em falsifiable; keep on keeping on, you’re in good company.
Yes, as mentioned before, there are 50 years of instrumental data that confirmed what most of the scientists most of the scientists that predicted that warming was coming due to CO2 increases in the 70’s were correct.
TOWP is not even claiming the equivalent of that Styrofoam explanation, he is demanding that Randi himself explain why he is failing.
As mentioned, you have not produced any quote from an expert that is supporting with your peculiar position, so far the best you did was to produce an out of context cite that the context shows it has nothing to do with what you are basing this line of stupid questions. The company you keep, as I looked for the best that would support your say so, is the pits.
I stated that decades of cooling wouldn’t falsify your position; you expressed mystification, adding that nothing in your reply would let me deduce that; I posted the explanation, given your current stated criterion; you can correct me on that if I’m wrong, or you can correct yourself if you were wrong, but you’re doing neither by terming it “whining”.
Likewise for the bit about a cooling trend. You state, falsely, that I claim one; I correct you; this goes on for a while; you call it “whining”.
Which position?
No, it’s that I’m asking about what predictions could be falsified in the future, and your answer is – mentioning predictions that weren’t falsified in the past. That’s apples and oranges for a guy trying to predict further warming.
Just so you’re clear TOWP, you aren’t winning. You sound like you’ve been handed what you think is a trump-card, the word falsify. And you’re just holding it up like a talisman against a vampire, not even understanding what it is. Just expecting its power to shield you.
I merely expect that a guy who predicts something in fact has specifics in mind, such that he can spell out (a) what hypothetical evidence would be consistent with his prediction, and (b) what hypothetical evidence would be inconsistent with his prediction. This strikes me as a fairly innocuous approach, which in a context other than this one would neither raise eyebrows nor spark comparisons to talismans; I don’t see falsifiability as a trump card that settles a matter, I see it as the routine starting point for evaluating predictions in general and this one in particular.
) so my intuition tells me something about this sort of “falsifiability”, though I am happy to listen to a real scientist articulate the situation better. (After all, Waldo does have a point: scientists constantly speak of falsifiability.)