More whining, and now ignoring that whatever you are having about the year 1998 we discussed already.
No, that is actually in all likelihood a certifiable stupid position, like Russel said once: “nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely” You may think that tomorrow all the experiments performed so far, and the data used to check the positions of the super majority of the climate scientists will tomorrow tell them something different.
But that is not sufficiently likely, and even less when so far you base your 10:20:30 question on a misunderstanding a UN **unofficial **report.
We sure did: I didn’t claim it marked the beginning of a cooling trend; you claimed I did; this went back and forth repeatedly; you were wrong.
It sure is hard to prove a negative, as I’m sure “Russel” would agree. Here, you’re predicting something specific – without saying exactly what – and I would be in the position of trying to disprove it, if you’d clarify your claim by spelling out what hypothetical evidence would be inconsistent with it. But how can I disprove a teapot you won’t even describe?
I’m not asking a 10:20:30 question; I’m merely asking you to clarify your position, not staking out one of my own. As for it being unofficial, by all means supply the UN official report, if (a) it states a different result than the one that shows no statistically significant difference between 2010 and 2005 and 1998, and (b) you feel it’s relevant to whatever falsification criteria you care to name.
I love that video, in which Randi theatrically humiliates a fraudster.
Oh, wait–did you mistake what Randi did for a rigorous scientific experiment? Really?
If it were a rigorous experiment, then sure, the psychic could modify his theory, in which case it’d be up to Randi to design a different experiment to disprove the modified theory. Because that’s how science works.
Scientists are, of course, under no obligation to engage with obvious liars and fraudsters; otherwise we could easily eat up all their time with stupid theories that we require them to falsify. Randi wasn’t doing science, he was doing theater, and the theater required something dramatic from him. He delivered.
And we also covered your other interpretation, that there is no warming. And that you continue to keep it when it is dumb also.
[Bugs Bunny]
What a maroon!
[/BB]
What it counts is that it does not matter what kind it is (and what you just said there is stupid).
The bigger point I still make is that my position is not important, what matter is the position of the scientists, statisticians, UN secretaries, climate research centers that support me. So I stand on the shoulders of giants, were is the dwarf you are using that supports you?
Not doing our homework, your point is ignored after a simple check, and Feynman would support me on that.
Yes, but that doesn’t matter to you. Your deliberate ignorance overlooks the foundation of the science. This isn’t a slew of scientists making models out of thin air. It’s based on some pretty basic science, science that’s taught in high schools (at least those that don’t treat creation ‘science’ equally with evolution).
Willful fucking ignorance. This is where GIGO bests me by a mile. I get just so far in talking to an anti-vaxer, a truther, a birther, or a denialist when it becomes all too clear that their spewed bullshit isn’t going to stink any less. I don’t get why people try and call in to Rush, Hannity, Coulter, or anyone similar trying to ‘convince’ them of anything. It’s your mission to display your ignorance proudly, to thwart any reason or mildly competent explanation. So sorry it’s on GIGO’s shoulders to repeated tilt at the windmill that is your pretense at honesty or basic comprehension, but I find myself simply disgusted.
Go get your children hooked on cigarettes. Why not? Can you prove that smoking is bad for them? Can any of the cancers or diseases be traced to cigarettes, wholly distinct from the myriad other chemical compounds out there that also cause similar so-called effects? You’re pretty much lock-step with the millions of people through the past decades parroting large corporate lines and transparently thin ‘debating’ tactics.
Willfully ignorant. Fuck being a disgrace to the Board and its so-called mission. You and your ilk are a disgrace to humanity.
It’s hardly my other interpretation, since I never claimed the first one; that was your mistake all the way. And it’s hardly my interpretation; it’s merely the WMO’s interpretation that there’s no statistically significant difference in global temperature between '98 and '10.
What counts is whether it can be falsified. The teapot can’t. Can your claims?
Do they offer up falsification criteria, or do they share your reticence?
If it’s for some reason relevant to your falsification criteria, then by all means consult the official report – which recaps the same point in the same manner, as you could’ve learned with a bit of homework and a simple check: “2010 was especially notable in that global surface temperatures reached record values at the same level as in 1998 and 2005 … the differences between the three years are not statistically significant”.
Not for me you don’t; I’ve written you off. Have fun fellating ‘falsifiability’ as your magik charm of ignorance, and feel free to strut around in your underwear wearing a crown of barbed wire—it doesn’t hide your wilful ignorance and decrepit immorality. Give your kids cigarettes, teach them that they don’t have to pay income taxes if they write their names in ALL CAPS, teach them that Obama isn’t really a citizen, go forth and be happy. What, you only subscribe to one crazy conspiracy theory at a time? Wish you’d choose something closer to home, like anti-vaxing that will only affect you and your family.
Are you fucking insane? The reason I wouldn’t give my kid a cigarette is because I could spell out falsification criteria when explaining why I think they cause cancer; that’s how sure I am that they cause cancer. GIGO can’t do that for his predictions; I can for mine.
I warn against that strategy because I can propose a hypothetical falsification test for it likewise. There are oodles of things that – unlike GIGO – I both warn against and can propose falsification tests for.
I vaccinated my kid precisely because I can supply a falsification criterion if asked.
[aside]
BTW, can I get some generalized appreciation for a bit of irony (at least I think it’s irony).
A lot of my work is fairly high profile government-wise. I can’t tell you the amount of time I spend corralling authors and collaborators on where the state of science is and what is and isn’t prudent to say. A generous amount of that time is spent convincing yahoos that no, the sky isn’t falling, that yesterday’s Bad News* wasn’t* caused by global warming, and no, millions of people haven’t already died because of temperature change.
In a lot of ways—particularly in a quick read/response to a commented bit of text—it sounds as if I’m in the same denier camp as TOW Pet al. Funny.
My kid can know that, on any point involving predictions, I ask for falsification criteria; I straightforwardly apply that test to every such point, and you think that makes me intentionally ignorant on – only one of those points? Using the same approach across the board works so well the rest of the time but amounts to intentional ignorance just this once, because, um, something something special pleading?
When NASA plugs asteroid telemetry data into their computer models and makes a prediction about whether or not it’s going to hit the Earth, what falsification criteria do you demand from them?
I’m not sure what you mean by “rigorous,” but yes I would call it a scientific experiment.
In any event the exact same argument would apply if the test had been done with a laboratory; multiple trials; lab notebooks; a written protocol; and men in white jackets.
So in your view, one should not jettison astrology or telekenisis in toto, correct?
How does one know if somebody is an “obvious liar and fraudster”? This is a serious question.
I suspect you are the one who is ignorant. I challenge you to summarize this “basic science” in a couple paragraphs. It should be no problem if it’s basic science.
Let’s up the stakes – let’s say they’re proposing a $3 trillion mission a la Deep Impact to divert the asteroid that they say is going to impact us. You’re going to demand falsification criteria, right? What would that be exactly?
I think the point he’s trying to make is that the person making the prediction bears the burden off specifying what events would mean that the prediction is wrong.
