# Is global warming falsifiable? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 6, 2014, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786 "2014-05-06T07:30:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 24
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/461 "2014-10-21T14:38:30Z")
The basics of AGW will take about 5 minutes to explain, less if your audience already knows a lot, and wants to learn new shit. Like if you already know and accept that burning fuels and making cement and land use changes is the cause of the CO2 rise, even though some will argue against that. (not me) But it’s the falsifiable parts that people focus on, and I would agree some people use this to try and deny that human beings are having any impact on the planet. People who don’t want their to be any impact, or people who deep down don’t care. Or people who are scared enough already, but that isn’t the topic, is it? As Sam Stone pointed out, politics has so fucked this topic that a scientific discussion is pretty much impossible. Is that any reason to stop fighting ignorance? Not in my mind. It just makes it harder. Grow a pair, get a thicker skin, and crack open a book. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/462 "2014-10-21T14:51:26Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > That declaration of FX about the deep ocean is a straw man too, the latest reports tell us that the deep ocean is not warming, but other levels do. It’s obvious that my analogy is too complicated to follow. And of course now that the deep oceans aren’t warming, it falls flat. Sort of. Remember we are speaking of global warming theory, and can it be shown to be in error. And also the supposition that any respected scientist who questions or attacks the theory will suffer professionally, and also that shouldn’t global warming be considered a religion? Because if there is nothing that can disprove it, and people suffer for even questioning it, isn’t that more religion than science? Like the example I tried to use, about the deep ocean heat content. The story (now changed) was that using the Argo sensors, somebody declared that global warming had not paused, since the deep ocean heat content was rising, hence global warming has not stopped, or even slowed down. That is the actual real story, presented as fact, by actual climate experts or something. So even if the surface temperature stopped rising, if the ocean was warming, even where we can’t really detect it, that is also global warming. So the definition of global warming was changed to include “if the deep ocean warms a tiny tiny amount, that is global warming, even if surface temps don’t rise, or even fall a little” My point is, was, that using that logic, one could say the opposite is true as well. If surface temps are rising, but the deep ocean is cooling slightly, then global warming isn’t happening. Because the total heat balance is negative, the oceans being so much larger than the air. This is the exact same reasoning, turned around. Of course it sound like nonsense. It actually is nonsense. That is the point. Saying that global warming didn’t stop, slow down, or pause, because the deep oceans are still warming is nonsense. That isn’t AGW, or what the greenhouse theory predicts at all. If that were actually the case (they say now it is not), the AGW theory would be completely wrong. Nothing in the theory predicts the deep oceans warming while surface temps do not. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/463 "2014-10-21T18:39:15Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > **Just what is the theory here?** > > First, we need to get straight on just what we might be talking about when referring to “The Theory of Global Warming.” There’s a natural tendency to identify such a theory with the statement that “The Earth is Warming.” That’s wrong because it confuses a theory with observations that might be used to test a theory. It’s also wrong because it would imply that the only reason we think that the Earth will continue warming in response to increased CO2 is that we already see it warming today; it loses the chain of physical causation. Somewhat better would be the statement, “The Earth is warming, and the warming is largely due to increases in atmospheric CO2 and other long lived greenhouse gases.” This is defensible as a hypothesis, but I think it would be far better to consider this statement, too, as more properly in the domain of one of the tests we might apply to the Theory of Global Warming. > > My own preferred statement of The Theory of Global Warming is this: > > An increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 and other long lived greenhouse gases requires the surface temperature to ultimately increase so as to maintain a balance with the absorbed solar radiation. The increase is amplified by water vapor (also a greenhouse gas), which increases with temperature in such a way as to keep relative humidity approximately constant. Melting of ice will further amplify the warming, particularly in high latitudes. The resulting widespread warming corresponding to a doubling of CO2 will be large enough and rapid enough to be well outside the range of past experience of the human species, by an amount comparable to the difference between a glacial and interglacial climate. Changes in atmospheric cloud properties may somewhat reduce or increase the sensitivity, but do not substantially alter the conclusion. > > The last part of the statement of the theory is, of course, the hard part, and the most uncertain. > > - See more at: [RealClimate: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/happy-birthday-charles-darwin/#sthash.kmRWKuwC.dpuf) Of course all that was not from FX, it was from Raymond Pierrehumbert that was also called by FX a “nobody” in the past. What is clear is that the real lesson of the piece is missed: > [@](#): > > Another relation between the two issues is that Evolution skeptics are motivated by ideology to deny a well-established scientific theory. In the case of Evolution, the ideological motivation is a perceived conflict between the picture of the operation of the natural world presented by the Theory of Evolution, and the tenets of certain faiths (a perceived conflict that, I am happy to see, is not shared by all people of faith, as witness the extensive "Evolution Sunday " activities ). Similarly, most Global Warming denialists are for the most part motivated not by abstract curiosity about the behavior of climate systems, but by a perceived conflict between the actions that would need to be taken to avert unacceptable climate change, and their beliefs about the extent to which economic growth and material prosperity based on fossil-fuel energy use should be unfettered. (Again, not all economists or members of the business community perceive a conflict here). In both cases, the skeptics prosecute not just an attack on the policy implications of science, but on the scientific method itself, often using similar rhetorical devices. In fact, sometimes skepticism about global warming and about evolution are combined in one and the same person, as is the case for Roy Spencer, for example (see his article on evolution here.) Early I was noted by the mod that I should not refer to the ignorance shown as coming from creationists, and now we have FX willfully ignoring what the article is mainly about. And of course, it is important to notice that one of the main theories should be the one that was proposed by Plass that was modified a bit for today, but FX refused to take it into account, just like we will see that it does not matter that I and others also accept what Pierrehumbert is saying here. What we are seeing coming from deniers is that they are “motivated by ideology to deny a well-established scientific theory.” Not science indeed. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/464 "2014-10-21T19:40:21Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Of course all that was not from FX, it was from Raymond Pierrehumbert That is the only post on the blog that actually explains the theory. Of course it’s not really about the theory, wouldn’t want to waste any space discussing that on realclimate. > [@dublos](#): > > One aspect of this whole debate that irks me is the idea that scientists doing climate change research and predicting outcomes that are gloom and doom are all some sort of homogenous unit and that anyone who breaks free of this and calls bullshit on their claims is going to get run out of town on a rail. That sounds good, but the irony of the last sentence is not lost. > [@dublos](#): > > If any of the “scientists” denying climate change had a leg to stand on they would be gaining additional scientists to their side in a tidal wave. So it’s “denial”, and not a single real scientist has ever published or spoke out, ever. Or everybody would be all over that. Pricelesss. Does anyone ever speak out? Of course they do, all the time. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > It has happened many times in many places. From the previous great debate- The link no longer works, but [the pdf is available through the wayback machine](http://web.archive.org/web/20090806181210/http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Spinning_the_Climate.pdf) I’ve never seen this document before, but it seems Vincent Gray was actually an expert who worked on the IPCC reports, from the start. An actual authority, with access to all the materials. > > He makes a key point = > > It’s a valid an interesting point, to ask if the global warming claims are actually scientific at all. Even a regular person suspects something fishy when they hear the exact same person change their story, their claims, based on how the weather has changed, in essence, whichever way the wind blows. > > [http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2001910590\_northpole23m.html](http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2001910590_northpole23m.html) > In 2004 This is the circumpolar vortex we heard so much about in the last 7 months in the US. > > Warmer means stronger winds, a stronger vortex, something that will be important in a little while. > [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/07/AR2011020703936.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/07/AR2011020703936.html) > In 2011 Now, just 5 years later, after the first two shockingly cold winters, the warming suddenly might be causing it to be colder. > > At which point your thinking person might start to wonder. Warming is thought to cause the vortex to be stronger, making it warmer, because the the cold air is bottled up. But then one might wonder, how the exact opposite can be true? > Now warming causes the vortex to “break down”, letting the cold air out, making it colder. This easily understood point is just ignored by the warmer, or worse, they try and grab it and declare, “Who ever predicted warming would cause warmer winters?”. Climate models don’t predict on that level. These people it seems, have never read the IPCC reports. much less understand what they meant. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/465 "2014-10-21T19:57:44Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > The “theory” of global warming is an overarching framework composed of countless hypotheses and predictions. Rubbish, especially the “countless” claim, that is pure rhetoric, it isn’t grounded in anything, much less science or evidence. Same for the predictions. You are confusing the large numbers of claims about the “changes due to” expected warming, with the theory itself. AGW theory does not speak to biological/botanical changes, economics or even weather events. It is about changes to the global energy balance from the enhanced greenhouse effect, from increasing well mixed greenhouse gases. What you are talking about would be climate change science, which is of course a huge field, but that isn’t the basis of the global warming theory. It needlessly muddies an already shit filled stream. The warming from CO2 is simple, it’s the other factors that are very much theoretical, or hypothetical if you will. The big ones are snow and ice changes, clouds, water vapor and circulation changes in the oceans and atmosphere. The predictions are not “well established” still, especially the effect from an increased hydrological cycle, and the observed changes in snow and ice. The steady increase in fall and winter snow for the NH is directly against the theoretical predictions from global warming. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/466 "2014-10-21T20:00:10Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > What we are seeing coming from deniers is that they are "motivated by ideology… And the irony meter hits infinity. :rolleyes: Tell me, what ideology do you think is motivating **FXMastermind** and **Brazil**? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/467 "2014-10-21T20:11:27Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Tell me, what ideology do you think is motivating **FXMastermind** and **Brazil**? A combination of distrust for policy positions that are perceived as “liberal” or “environmental” and an overconfident assumption that anti-“Big Science” contrarianism goes along with being an independent and original thinker. There’s also a contributing factor of Dunning-Kruger effect, without which it’s pretty much impossible for nonspecialists in a highly technical field to convince themselves that the vast majority of specialist researchers who disagree with them are simply wrong. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/468 "2014-10-21T20:16:34Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > A combination of distrust for policy positions that are perceived as “liberal” or “environmental” That’s the funniest thing I’ve seen in the last hour. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/469 "2014-10-21T20:18:06Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > It’s obvious that my analogy is too complicated to follow. > > And of course now that the deep oceans aren’t warming, it falls flat. Sort of. > > Remember we are speaking of global warming theory, and can it be shown to be in error. And also the supposition that any respected scientist who questions or attacks the theory will suffer professionally, and also that shouldn’t global warming be considered a religion? > > Because if there is nothing that can disprove it, and people suffer for even questioning it, isn’t that more religion than science? As pointed by Pierrehumbert this silly point is really motivated by ideology to deny a well-established scientific theory. There was previous talk about the heat that was reported coming back to the earth in the papers in post#4 Most is going to the oceans, and besides the report of the deep ocean not getting much of that heat another report found that in other levels the oceans continue to gain more heat. The question here is a basic one then: What religion is involved here?" > **[A lot more heat is found in the ocean](https://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/10/a-lot-more-heat-is-found-in-ocean.html)** > > Global warming & climate change. Eavesdropping on climate science deniers, their weird pseudo-science and crazy conspiracy theories. > [@](#): > > Before going any further into that, the other paper is relevant here. This work looked at the ocean heat content and sea surface height, comparing the northern and southern hemispheres. What the scientists found was that it is likely that the estimated increase in ocean heat content for the upper 700 metres of oceans has been underestimated. The reason for this is poor sampling of the southern hemisphere. The scientists say there is strong evidence that in regions where the data is sparse, analytical methods have erred on the low side. > > What Paul Durack and his colleagues did was look at the simulated sea surface height changes, after partitioning the northern and southern hemispheres. This matched up with precise altimeter observations. But when they did the same for ocean warming, they found it was not consistent with the observed in-situ-based ocean heat content estimates. > > They compared modeled estimates of ocean heat content (OHC) change with observations and noted differences. Acknowledging that it could simply be internal variability that was causing discrepancies, they also figured that some of the discrepancies could be the result of either systematic model errors and/or errors in observations. So they looked further. They compared simulated changes in sea surface height (SSH) with satellite altimetry measurements. > > They explained what contributes to rising sea level as follows: > > ``` > Steric expansion, water expanding as it gets warmer - which accounts for around 40% of the long term average increase in sea surface height. > More water - mass contributions from melting land ice. That is, from the cryosphere. > Halosteric effects - from a change in salinity at the regional level. > Dynamic effects from changes in circulation. (Sea level is not the same all over.) > > ``` Both studies do not contradict what was pointed out: all the extra heat is still going into the ocean in the top 2000 metres or so. Of course we know that FX has called the new head of NASA/GISS as a nobody, but he and many others see both studies and conclude that there is now more evidence that the climate sensibility is higher than it was thought. [QUOTE=Head of GISS] Taking account of actual data used (AR5 total heat accumulation), Durack makes 15% diff. ECS -\> 1.1-4.7ºC [/QUOTE] As Tim Minchin said, “Science adjusts its views based on what’s observed Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.” The belief here is from you thinking that the deep ocean issue is as deep as you think it is. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/470 "2014-10-21T20:34:13Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > **Just what is the theory here?** > > First, we need to get straight on just what we might be talking about when referring to “The Theory of Global Warming.” … When quoting someone else’s work it’s customary to put it in a quote block (or in quotation marks if it’s short) so that it’s not mistaken for one’s own work. That isn’t a bad summary and it’s substantially the same as my one-liner [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17831694&postcount=441) at the end of the first paragraph, and substantially the same as the “ten points of falsification” in my earlier post that I linked to there, or the more formal description I provided in terms of the hierarchy of climate models that I also linked to there. If one were to expand on that with all the latest evidence and appropriate citations one would have the IPCC WG1 report. Too bad it contradicts just about everything you’ve ever said yourself. Your track record here is really quite something. I also note that you haven’t actually addressed a single one of the questions I asked in that post. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/471 "2014-10-21T22:25:29Z")
There is some real irony involved here. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > As Tim Minchin said, “Science adjusts its views based on what’s observed" So does anyone trying put a basketball through a hoop, or fix a leaking roof. > [@wolfpup](#): > > I also note that you haven’t actually addressed a single one of the questions I asked in that post. There you go again. Not only are your demands off topic, and I answered in the original post, and I expounded once again on several, you still just made something up. You simply must learn the difference between “he ignored me completely” and “I didn’t like his answer”, lest you be cast into the abyss. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/472 "2014-10-21T22:41:19Z")
So, as I suspected, no answers are forthcoming from **FX** about the questions I asked. I think it might be instructive to look at this in a bit more detail. Folks who don’t closely follow climate issues might even learn something here, not just about climate, but about the techniques of denialists. I [stated here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17814866&postcount=356) that Cohen’s paper hypothesized three types of circulation perturbations to account for colder recent mid-latitudes, and corrected FX on his misconceptions about what high-latitude winter warming is about and what it isn’t. [This was the **FX** ’s response](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17814955&postcount=358): “That sort of smug claim is hilarious, it tells me the author hasn’t actually read the papers, something that is obvious when you actually do read.” I’m still waiting to hear how this shows that I didn’t read the paper or got the facts wrong. I was referencing Cohen’s latest paper in Nature Geoscience, which can be found [here](http://web.mit.edu/jlcohen/www/papers/Cohenetal_NGeo14.pdf). I would draw the reader’s attention to the abstract in which Cohen describes the possible circulation changes that might be responsible for the mid-latitude anomaly, and the concluding paragraphs in which Cohen states that “more and better observations would not only improve our understanding of the Arctic and its climate, but also help to elucidate the mechanisms of atmospheric response to Arctic amplification and better constrain the models.” Indeed. The expectation of “boreal winter warming” isn’t something magical or hard to understand; when we say that global warming theory “predicts” it we simply mean that (a) we expect warming in general due to increasing CO2, and (b) we expect the effects of Arctic amplification to become stronger as we go further north. Arctic amplification is most certainly occurring – visibly and dramatically so – and temperature increases at high latitudes are double what they are at lower latitudes. The effects are strongest in autumn and winter, and we would therefore expect boreal latitudes, on average – as a first-order approximation that ignores circulation systems – to have warmer winters because of the fringe effects of Arctic amplification. This is what Cohen correctly states. But in the real world, complex circulation systems can change these simple expectations from first-order approximations, and understanding these phenomena helps us refine our general circulation models, as Cohen also correctly implies. To suggest that this somehow “invalidates” what we actually mean by global warming theory or AGW so completely misses the point that it reflects either a profound misunderstanding of what global warming theory is or just simply peddling the denialist agenda. So I’m still waiting for an apology from **FX** about how I was making a “smug claim” and obviously didn’t read the paper (I suspect I’ll be waiting forever). We don’t need to look too far to see this agenda being peddled, which is why I asked the other questions that also weren’t answered, some of which I itemized below. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > Rather than clutter the topic, simply read the explanation, it is in the post. That you can’t follow the reasoning, what am I to do about that? I read it. And now everybody else can, too. Link [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17030924&postcount=135) and [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17031133&postcount=138). And no, I cannot follow the reasoning that says " ‘Water vapor is a feedback and not a forcing’, there isn’t any evidence that such a statement exists, except where somebody made it up. You won’t find it in a textbook, or any scientific paper, or even on a real climate science page". I “cannot follow the reasoning” because there isn’t any “reasoning”. It’s complete bullshit. As I posted there, I found [about 291,000 papers](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17031279&postcount=142) ([and a textbook](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17031337&postcount=143), FYI) that say exactly what **FX** claimed they don’t say, a climate principle so basic most of us learn it in high school. And [this priceless bit](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17068419&postcount=1704): > [@](#): > > The concept of water vapor being a feedback only is based on … something. It is easy to describe, I have done it multiple times. In fact, the idea that the warmists has about it is pretty damn funny when you put in context. > > The slight warming from increased CO2 will force more water vapor to go into the atmosphere, leading to more warming. More warming results in more water vapor, that is the assumption that leads to this. It’s PHYSICS! bitch. As I’ve pointed out several times now, water vapor positive feedback is only about half of what the blackbody effect contributes to cooling via outgoing IR, so it’s a feedback but a self-limiting controlled feedback. **That’s** physics! A feedback is self-amplifying and out of control only if the sum of the gain factors is greater than 1. **FX** appears neither to understand that water vapor functions as a climate feedback, nor even what a feedback is. Or how about [this other priceless bit](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17166658&postcount=561): > [@](#): > > But because the land+ocean mean is dropping, they insist the heat has somehow stopped warming the world, and is only warming the deep oceans. That is actually what they are claiming. It actually could be true as well. If so, then the AGW theory is completely wrong. It’s a real conundrum. Well, no, completely wrong on both counts. Neither is the global mean temperature “dropping”, nor would heat absorption by deep oceans make “AGW theory completely wrong” – what it actually would do is reconfirm that the earth’s net energy balance is exactly what we expect it to be. Of course some of us like to pretend that CO2 doesn’t actually cause any heat to be added to the earth’s energy balance. In fact [here’s an example of that kind of digression](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17122677&postcount=27) – it comes from a discussion where FX was trying to claim that changes in solar variations are what is actually driving climate change (first try to deny that climate change occurring, but if you can’t, hey, find something other than CO2 to blame!): [I responded to that here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17123960&postcount=37), setting him straight on the misinformation about solar variations – one of the favorite memes of denialists. But what I also wanted to point out was this remarkable statement **FX** makes at the end: “Scientists who have spent a lifetime in study and research of these matters are some of the biggest skeptics of the “climate” experts, as they can see how the “science” is agenda driven, not evidence based.” As I also pointed out in that same response, climate scientists _ **are** _ “scientists who have spent a lifetime in study and research of these matters” – like those who write the climate science summaries for the IPCC. But of course, **FX** tells us that [the IPCC is “woo woo science”](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17815999&postcount=383). OK, that’s about all the patience for dealing with this nonsense that I have for now. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/473 "2014-10-21T23:48:28Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > There is some real irony involved here. So does anyone trying put a basketball through a hoop, or fix a leaking roof. Nah, we are only seeing avoiding manoeuvres so as not to touch the science; so, once again, what religion was involved in the studies that reported on the deep ocean and the accumulated heat that was missed in the upper regions of the south seas? And the quote had another part: “Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.” So, do you deny that the deep ocean not gaining much heat does not refute the evidence of the heat gained in other areas of the oceans? It is clear that just with like your sorry citation of Ray Pierrehumbert you do not realize that the study does not help you, it makes you look worst. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > There you go again. > > Not only are your demands off topic, and I answered in the original post, and I expounded once again on several, you still just made something up. You simply must learn the difference between “he ignored me completely” and “I didn’t like his answer”, lest you be cast into the abyss. As I noticed, your answer had the sorry idea that everyone, scientists and the guys at Sceptical Science where ignorants, it turns out that many other scientists had the research to support them, you only had a misunderstanding of one researcher to support you; what it is clear is that you were wrong and there is a clear disconnect from you between what science is and your flights of fancy when you ignore what virtually all scientists and data are telling us about this issue. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2014, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/474 "2014-10-22T00:09:55Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > A combination of distrust for policy positions that are perceived as “liberal” or “environmental” and an overconfident assumption that anti-“Big Science” contrarianism goes along with being an independent and original thinker. > > There’s also a contributing factor of Dunning-Kruger effect, without which it’s pretty much impossible for nonspecialists in a highly technical field to convince themselves that the vast majority of specialist researchers who disagree with them are simply wrong. +1 And I have to notice that no religion needs to be invoked, there is indeed a big section of Americans who do think that ignorance is bliss. Of course one can not help to observe once again how the cite by FX channelling Ray Pierrehumbert pointed at Roy Spencer and how he and a good number of contrarians do use faith to deny both evolution and human induced climate change. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2014, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/475 "2014-10-22T01:54:13Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > So does anyone trying put a basketball through a hoop, or fix a leaking roof. This is a typical manifestation of the Dunning-Kruger effect I mentioned above. Sure, the **fundamental** principles of science do boil down in the last analysis to observation and common sense. But any non-scientist who interprets that as meaning that ordinary observation and common sense are all they need to successfully refute highly technical specialized research might as well be claiming that they can carve Michelangelo’s _David_ because all it takes is chipping away marble with a chisel. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2014, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/476 "2014-10-22T02:31:35Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > I leave it up to the masochist still reading here, is this not the definition of woo woo science? It’s a never ending source of entertainment, even when it looks like multi-train accident. “We have to act now to stop dangerous global warming, and the cause is using fossil fuels, so we must reduce fuel use. Global warming is now irrefutable, we know with confidence that unless we take drastic steps, dangerous warming will continue.” Hold up there Sparky. What do you mean by global warming? “You are obviously a denier, the same as somebody who thinks the world is flat, smoking is good for you, and evolution doesn’t exist” What the fuck are you talking about? I asked you a simple question. “Go read the latest IPCC report, it’s all in there. I’m done trying to explain things to you” OK then, good luck with that. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2014, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/477 "2014-10-22T02:43:08Z")
Yep, called it. As predicted FX will ignore even the definitions that he found and that **we agreed with too**. (Nevermind that the article he cited for that definition came with a big diss of what he is doing in discussions like this one) ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2014, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/478 "2014-10-22T02:43:53Z")
Does it seem like a religion? Oh hell yes, or rather the adherents and the loudest strident voices come across that way. > [@wolfpup](#): > > You and Nate Silver and Melanie Mitchell and for that matter the likes of Freeman Dyson and others are all making broad generalizations that are essentially meaningless without engaging in specific issues. Is that not just too much? I ask what is meant, in a specific manner, and nothing but evasion, and of course “Go read the Bible you ignorant denier”, it’s beyond belief at times. But the hubris of claiming Dyson must be wrong, because he states his mind about global warming, and you are sure he is wrong, that is the ultimate irony. > [@](#): > > In a nutshell, he thinks the computer-generated models being used to predict long-term climate consequences are flawed because scientists have too little information about many of the variables that must be taken into account. [http://noconsensus.org/scientists/freeman\_dyson.php](http://noconsensus.org/scientists/freeman_dyson.php) He is with little doubt one of the smartest men alive, if not the smartest. But you see it everywhere, on blogs and forums, tweets and whatever, that he knows nothing about climate research, and you shouldn’t be swayed by his opinion. It’s beyond priceless. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2014, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/479 "2014-10-22T02:49:07Z")
It doesn’t get much simpler or direct than the following. “Does the global warming theory predict anything?” What does it predict? Is there any prediction that will confirm confidence in the theory? The most obvious thing when it comes to warmer or colder, is cold, and snow. It’s one of those “in your face” things, that can be measured, that can be seen, felt, that effects our lives. What does the theory predict about snow and cold? If you claim it makes no predictions about this matter, or that such a climate indicator does not matter, you are beyond even being wrong. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2014, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/480 "2014-10-22T02:52:15Z")
Well of course Dyson is making too broad generalizations, that he also agrees with the poles warming more is of no importance to FXMastermind anyhow. And as pointed many times before, the moment the accusation comes that “it is like religion” is used in a discussion is like a Godwin. It only shows that the one making that claim is officially out of ideas and just following what pseudo scientists do. [http://www.altairiv.net/Storm.html](http://www.altairiv.net/Storm.html) > [@](#): > > Storm: “You’re so sure of your position > But you’re just closed-minded > I think you’ll find > Your faith in science and tests > Is just as blind > As the faith of any fundamentalist” > > Tim Minchin: "Hmm that’s a good point, let me think for a bit > Oh wait, my mistake, _that’s absolute bullshit_. > Science adjusts its views based on what’s observed > Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786.md?page=23) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786.md?page=25)