# 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:** 35
**Author:** ![EdwinAmi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5fc32e/32.png) [@EdwinAmi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EdwinAmi)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/682 "2014-11-18T01:29:51Z")
> [@](#): > > that you think poking holes in solar’s ability to be a one-shot solution is the same thing as undercutting the consensus of climate science. No, I think it shows the bullshit. Whatever you claim, there are a LOT of greenies who are saying “Global warming is real, we need to spend a trillion on only solar and wind, no nuclear or hydro”. That anybody can claim to know the science but think this is bullshit. So far the only way you guys can sound reasonable is by saying global warming won’t be so bad or so fast or that green tech will only be a part of the solution. But those all beg the questions. If it won’t be so bad, why spend the money on taking the chance? You’re saying it will be a long scale, smaller change, then why will that necessarily be that bad? You say that bad things can happen on the way to it happening, but that’s a separate proposal. Now you have to show me that AGW will have lesser bad effects in the short term, which is much more specific and much harder to prove. And how about the other countries? Now we gotta switch them to a lot of nuclear the severity, and thus the calculus, changes with your claims. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/683 "2014-11-18T01:32:20Z")
> [@EdwinAmi](#): > > blah blah blah, You are ignoring facts and hadwaving away arguments because you can’t deal with them via reasoned debate. > [@](#): > > so all you guys can show me is that SOME enviros can take a reasonabe approach, by in part also downplaying the seriousness of global warming and how fast it will happen, This is more ignorance on your part. The warming and sea level rise is a gradual thing. > [@](#): > > which just raises the question why we should even care in that case (honestly, anything occuring over a 150 or more span isn’t even worth spending the money when the theory could be flat out wrong and the costs are definitely high and the effects of AGW might not be so harmful) Some people care about the world they leave to their children. And the vast majority of climate scientists think warming is very likely. You’re just wrong. > [@](#): > > Anyway you slice it, it don’t work out to justify moving without a direct democratic vote by the American people to spend their money. Public opinion has nothing to do with if something is factual. ---
**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:** [November 18, 2014, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/684 "2014-11-18T01:35:45Z")
> [@EdwinAmi](#): > > I don’t need to cite anything. Anybody who understands basic science understands this stuff. > A solar cell, for example, costs $15 per watt of generation. Well, the request for cites is not only for us, but for you. That price you mention was typical of the 80’s, currently solar panels are currently selling for as low as US$0.70 per watt (7-April-2012 (there are cheaper now)) in industrial quantities > **[Cost of electricity by source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_per_watt)** > > Different methods of electricity generation can incur a variety of different costs, which can be divided into three general categories: 1) wholesale costs, or all costs paid by utilities associated with acquiring and distributing electricity to consumers, 2) retail costs paid by consumers, and 3) external costs, or externalities, imposed on society. > Wholesale costs include initial capital, operations & maintenance (O&M), transmission, and costs of decommissioning. Depending on the local regula... ---
**Author:** ![EdwinAmi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5fc32e/32.png) [@EdwinAmi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EdwinAmi)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/685 "2014-11-18T01:42:55Z")
> [@](#): > > Public opinion has nothing to do with if something is factual. And so we come to the heart of the matter. You think that you are ordained by magical rite to spend the American people’s money against their will. Got it. Elitist through and through. Deep down it isn’t even about helping the world, it’s about your own moral superiority. > [@](#): > > This is more ignorance on your part. The warming and sea level rise is a gradual thing. Right, genius, and logically, if they’re gradual, or maybe not even happening, that probably won’t justify spending oodles of taxpayer money. > [@](#): > > Some people care about the world they leave to their children. ehhh… First you said it’s gradual, now you’re mentioning our children. Which is it? Cause including children only adds like 30 years to a timescale, brah. You’re not making any sense. Anyway, if it’s that far down the line, yeah , I don’t care that much, and I’ll take my chances and have America not spend all that money, since you cold just be flat out wrong > [@](#): > > You are ignoring facts and hadwaving away arguments because you can’t deal with them via reasoned debate. No, I’m just asking you to put your money where your mouth is. Ultimately, all you’ve been doing is claiming “consensus”, like it fucking matters at all in science, which it doesn’t at all, and just asserting that AGW is true. You fundamentally didn’t answer any of my questions about AGW inconsistencies. Like, why even care about green tech at all when we could build nuclear and hydro, and given that AGW is the main problem? Why have anyone spend all that money for the much more expensive solar? Nuclear has had one serious disaster in one shitty communist country, and one incident in America. Sounds pretty fucking safe to me. And again, how can you expect me to believe you can quantify what the early damage from slowly occurring AGW will be? Where is the data to back that up? Not just one or two shitty articles, I mean really, what specifically is going to happen (and none of that “more extreme weather” bullshit which is just a way to be able to claim that all weather happening is AGW), and how specifically do you know it? What you fail to realize is, you’re so certain, fine, but **you’ve failed to pass the bar to expect people to spend insane amounts of money from the public coffers** But, oh yeah, you don’t care about that, you just want to mandate it your way ---
**Author:** ![EdwinAmi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5fc32e/32.png) [@EdwinAmi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EdwinAmi)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/686 "2014-11-18T01:45:01Z")
> [@](#): > > currently solar panels are currently selling for as low as US$0.70 per watt sounds like bullshit, I don’t believe it. I was a homebuilder and told the prices, and I know what goes into making a solar cell, which is a lot (fucking absolutely pure glass, insane heat, rare metals). Sounds like someone bought an old one someone wanted to unload. ---
**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:** [November 18, 2014, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/687 "2014-11-18T01:46:11Z")
> [@EdwinAmi](#): > > blah blah blah, > so all you guys can show me is that SOME enviros can take a reasonabe approach, by in part also downplaying the seriousness of global warming and how fast it will happen, which just raises the question why we should even care in that case (honestly, anything occuring over a 150 or more span isn’t even worth spending the money when the theory could be flat out wrong and the costs are definitely high and the effects of AGW might not be so harmful) The quotes from the Union of Concerned Scientists pointed at issues that we will have to deal in less than 30 years. > [@EdwinAmi](#): > > Anyway you slice it, it don’t work out to justify moving without a direct democratic vote by the American people to spend their money. The reality is that even with all the dirty money more people still wants to do the right thing. [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/us/why-republicans-keep-telling-everyone-theyre-not-scientists.html?\_r=0](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/us/why-republicans-keep-telling-everyone-theyre-not-scientists.html?_r=0) > [@](#): > > Since then polls show that the political landscape has changed. A 2013 survey by USA Today and Stanford University found that 71 percent of Americans say they are already seeing the results of climate change, and 55 percent support limiting greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. Mr. Krosnick of Stanford analyzed polls in 46 states conducted between 2006 and 2013 and found that in every state surveyed, at least 75 percent of the population acknowledged the existence of climate change, and at least 67 percent said the government should limit greenhouse gas emissions. The politicians, (virtually all Republicans) are the weakest link. ---
**Author:** ![EdwinAmi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5fc32e/32.png) [@EdwinAmi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EdwinAmi)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/688 "2014-11-18T01:50:15Z")
union of concerned scientists - a blatantly left-wing promoting organization some shitty politician sidestepping the issue\> wow surprise, a politician doesn’t want to take responsibility and telephone surveys, which are massively self selecting weak sauce I could also point you to studies where people want the keystone XL pipeline in, or value jobs more than the environment ---
**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:** [November 18, 2014, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/689 "2014-11-18T01:50:49Z")
> [@EdwinAmi](#): > > sounds like bullshit, I don’t believe it. I was a homebuilder and told the prices, and I know what goes into making a solar cell, which is a lot (fucking absolutely pure glass, insane heat, rare metals). Sounds like someone bought an old one someone wanted to unload. You should not fall for the refusal to see the march of time issue that affects many conservatives, you were a home builder indeed, but prices have tumbled down and so should be your calculations and train of very conservative points that have little to do with the changing environment regarding the price of solar power. [http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56776.pdf](http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56776.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![EdwinAmi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5fc32e/32.png) [@EdwinAmi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EdwinAmi)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/690 "2014-11-18T01:55:32Z")
actually, if you go and read that claim, it was one company deliberately selling low price for a solar cell that’s still undeveloped technology standard solar cells cost $15/watt, period. and BTW, guys, saying “maybe the techonology will change” makes your case for getting taxpayer money worse, not better ---
**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:** [November 18, 2014, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/691 "2014-11-18T01:57:49Z")
> [@EdwinAmi](#): > > union of concerned scientists - > a blatantly left-wing promoting organization > > some shitty politician sidestepping the issue\> wow surprise, a politician doesn’t want to take responsibility > > and telephone surveys, which are massively self selecting > > weak sauce Nope, that does not work here, you need to cite the source that is telling you that, otherwise you do not even have a sauce. 🙂 > [@EdwinAmi](#): > > I could also point you to studies where people want the keystone XL pipeline in, or value jobs more than the environment Red herring, as I pointed too before. The problem is the emissions, for the us it will matter little from where those emissions will come from, what we have to do is to control the emissions, regardless of the source. I do think making Keystone is not a good idea, if it has to be done then bills like the one pointed at that support solar wind and nuclear power should be approved too as a counterbalance. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/692 "2014-11-18T02:00:40Z")
> [@EdwinAmi](#): > > And so we come to the heart of the matter. You think that you are ordained by magical rite to spend the American people’s money against their will. Got it. > Elitist through and through. Deep down it isn’t even about helping the world, it’s about your own moral superiority. Please don’t attribute things to me that I didn’t say, so it’s easier for you to argue against. That, by the way, is what Strawmanning actually means. > [@](#): > > Right, genius, and logically, if they’re gradual, or maybe not even happening, that probably won’t justify spending oodles of taxpayer money. Before mocking me, you might want to check if what you’re advocating makes any sense. Why is something gradual not a big deal? I’ll raise your core body temperature by a tenth of a degree per hour. No big deal, right? > [@](#): > > ehhh… First you said it’s gradual, now you’re mentioning our children. Which is it? Cause including children only adds like 30 years to a timescale, brah. You’re not making any sense. Because gradual means in graduations. Effects are being noted now. My daughter will have more effects. There are currently island nations that are in danger of having no drinking water because of sea-level rise. Gradual means slowly. Write that down. > [@](#): > > Anyway, if it’s that far down the line, yeah , I don’t care that much, and I’ll take my chances and have America not spend all that money, since you cold just be flat out wrong That’s profoundly nasty. You may not care what happens to people a hundred years from now, but I do. Also, the vast majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is extremely likely to happen. > [@](#): > > No, I’m just asking you to put your money where your mouth is. Ultimately, all you’ve been doing is claiming “consensus”, like it fucking matters at all in science, which it doesn’t at all, and just asserting that AGW is true. You’re ignorant of how science works. You don’t even have a basic understanding of peer-review. You shouldn’t be proud of being so ignorant. You shouldn’t defend it. This site is about fighting ignorance, not wallowing in it like a sow in filth. > [@](#): > > You fundamentally didn’t answer any of my questions about AGW inconsistencies. The “inconsistencies” you bring up are the result of your profound lack of knowledge and understanding about this issue. > [@](#): > > Like, why even care about green tech at all when we could build nuclear and hydro, and given that AGW is the main problem? Because nuclear is a part of any reasonable solution, but it can render entire cities uninhabitable in the event of disaster or terrorism. That means thought should be put into its implementation. > [@](#): > > Why have anyone spend all that money for the much more expensive solar? Solar is likely to play a part. No one is credibly thinking solar is the only solution, at least with current technology. > [@](#): > > Nuclear has had one serious disaster in one shitty communist country, and one incident in America. Sounds pretty fucking safe to me. That’s because you’re ignorant. Look up Fukushima. I’m not saying that nuclear is unusable. It clearly is. But you don’t want a reactor in the center of Manhattan or LA. > [@](#): > > And again, how can you expect me to believe you can quantify what the early damage from slowly occurring AGW will be? Where is the data to back that up? Not just one or two shitty articles, I mean really, what specifically is going to happen (and none of that “more extreme weather” bullshit which is just a way to be able to claim that all weather happening is AGW), and how specifically do you know it? Because the vast majority of climate scientists agree that AGW is real. And there is currently enough ice on land to cause huge disruptions to our society. Not to mention drought, crops and other issues. > [@](#): > > What you fail to realize is, you’re so certain, fine, but **you’ve failed to pass the bar to expect people to spend insane amounts of money from the public coffers** I’m personally not certain. I just accept what the vast majority of climate scientists say. Because I accept scientific consensus, unlike you. Your ignorance is not the equal of a scientist’s knowledge. > [@](#): > > But, oh yeah, you don’t care about that, you just want to mandate it your way All thoughtful people should care about those that will come after us. ---
**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:** [November 18, 2014, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/693 "2014-11-18T02:01:10Z")
> [@EdwinAmi](#): > > actually, if you go and read that claim, it was one company deliberately selling low price for a solar cell that’s still undeveloped technology > > standard solar cells cost $15/watt, period. > > and BTW, guys, saying “maybe the techonology will change” makes your case for getting taxpayer money worse, not better The highest price on the lines shown in the graph was $12. Period. And it was once again decades ago. ---
**Author:** ![EdwinAmi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5fc32e/32.png) [@EdwinAmi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EdwinAmi)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/694 "2014-11-18T02:02:55Z")
whatever brah, if these are the arguments you guys make in favor of massive economic resturcturing and costs, you’ve found out why you can’t seem to convince anyone. Though I guess that doesn’t matter to you guys since you oh so creepily imply that your ABSOLUTELY right, and so people’s wishes don’t even matter. Honestly, it’ apparent that you guys would storm the white house and take it by force if you think it’d work all I was presented with is the same crappy evidence, endless appeals to consensus, and no one answering my questions about the serious inconsistencies in AGW theory. No sale, brah. No sale. ---
**Author:** ![EdwinAmi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5fc32e/32.png) [@EdwinAmi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EdwinAmi)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/695 "2014-11-18T02:09:47Z")
> [@](#): > > Look up Fukushima. Yeah, because of the huge danger of earthquakes in the eastern half of the country:rolleyes: which basically means you didn’t answer my question, BTW. Why any green tech when nuclear is cheaper (once you get rid of the rdidiculous regulations)? We could build quake-resistant reactors, it isn’t hard > [@](#): > > All thoughtful people should care about those that will come after us. Not if it’s 300 years down the line and it’s a maybe and it might even be good (more warmth and moisture could be good) and you’re asking us to spend billions if not trillions of dollars honestly, looking at your other comments you didn’t even really answer the things I said that you quoted, certainly not with any real scientific data. You’re literally just asserting and appealing to authority. **YOU HAVE NOT MADE YOUR CASE TO PROMPT SUCH ACTION AND EXPENDITURE** ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/696 "2014-11-18T02:11:49Z")
> [@EdwinAmi](#): > > whatever brah, if these are the arguments you guys make in favor of massive economic resturcturing and costs, you’ve found out why you can’t seem to convince anyone. It’s hard to convince some people because many people have the same resistance to facts and reality that conflicts with their ideology that you do. Sadly, because you accept the RW Media’s version of reality, you’re tough to convince otherwise. Take this thread, you’ve been shown time and again that things you assert simply aren’t true, but based purely on faith you assume that the facts must be wrong, instead of what you believe. > [@](#): > > Though I guess that doesn’t matter to you guys since you oh so creepily imply that your ABSOLUTELY right, and so people’s wishes don’t even matter. Honestly, it’ apparent that you guys would storm the white house and take it by force if you think it’d work If there weren’t a concerted effort at misinforming people there would be more political will for this. It used to be that the GOP was for Cap and Trade, but because of the rise if the TP, they had to back off. > [@](#): > > all I was presented with is the same crappy evidence, You think the evidence is crappy because you don’t understand it. > [@](#): > > endless appeals to consensus, Scientific consensus is how science works. Consensus isn’t a popularity contest, it’s a process whereby findings are checked and rechecked. But you don’t know that. > [@](#): > > and no one answering my questions about the serious inconsistencies in AGW theory. I’ve answered the ones I saw, why not specifically number them. > [@](#): > > No sale, brah. No sale. Stubborness isn’t the same thing as reason. ---
**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:** [November 18, 2014, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/697 "2014-11-18T02:18:10Z")
> [@EdwinAmi](#): > > whatever brah, if these are the arguments you guys make in favor of massive economic resturcturing and costs, you’ve found out why you can’t seem to convince anyone. Thing is if you were correct then we could not see the huge changes taking place in the west that is scaring the old energy companies. > **[Rooftop solar is growing so fast that electric utilites are now trying to...](https://www.vox.com/2014/9/29/6849723/solar-power-net-metering-utilities-fight-states)** > > Vox is a general interest news site for the 21st century. Its mission: to help everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help shape it. In text, video and audio, our reporters explain politics, policy, world affairs, technology,... > [@EdwinAmi](#): > > Though I guess that doesn’t matter to you guys since you oh so creepily imply that your ABSOLUTELY right, and so people’s wishes don’t even matter. Honestly, it’ apparent that you guys would storm the white house and take it by force if you think it’d work > > all I was presented with is the same crappy evidence, endless appeals to consensus, and no one answering my questions about the serious inconsistencies in AGW theory. No sale, brah. No sale. Actually many conservatives are buying, your points are the ones the ones with expired dates. > **[How the Tea Party came to love solar energy](https://theweek.com/articles/447165/how-tea-party-came-love-solar-energy)** > > When it comes to renewable energy, it turns out that liberals and conservatives can find common ground ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/698 "2014-11-18T02:22:03Z")
> [@EdwinAmi](#): > > Yeah, because of the huge danger of earthquakes in the eastern half of the country:rolleyes: As I said, thought needs to be put into where to use nuclear. Geological stability is an example of thought. Get it? > [@](#): > > which basically means you didn’t answer my question, BTW. Why any green tech when nuclear is cheaper (once you get rid of the rdidiculous regulations)? We could build quake-resistant reactors, it isn’t hard Because nuclear has drawbacks, like in the event of disaster or terrorism, it can render cities uninhabitable. > [@](#): > > Not if it’s 300 years down the line and it’s a maybe and it might even be good (more warmth and moisture could be good) and you’re asking us to spend billions if not trillions of dollars I’m not asking you to spend anything. I’m saying that policy should be driven by reality, not what you hear on the RW media. Also, there are effects that will happen before 300 years. Sea levels are rising now. Millions of people being displaced will be a big deal. It will cause political instability and needless suffering. > [@](#): > > honestly, looking at your other comments you didn’t even really answer the things I said that you quoted, certainly not with any real scientific data. Your ignorance about basic science and desire to handwave away things you don’t agree with makes it kind of a waste of time. Please list specifically what you’d like to know? > [@](#): > > You’re literally just asserting and appealing to authority. An appeal to authority isn’t a fallacy when the it’s an actual authority on the subject. People who know more than you agree that AGW is a fact. Because of ignorance and lack of training you don’t have the capacity to dismiss it credibly. > [@](#): > > **YOU HAVE NOT MADE YOUR CASE TO PROMPT SUCH ACTION AND EXPENDITURE** I haven’t made the case. The world’s climate scientists have made the case. ---
**Author:** ![EdwinAmi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5fc32e/32.png) [@EdwinAmi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EdwinAmi)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/699 "2014-11-18T02:23:45Z")
> [@](#): > > Scientific consensus is how science works. Consensus isn’t a popularity contest, it’s a process whereby findings are checked and rechecked. But you don’t know that. Nope, sorry. You either have the evidence or you don’t. It’s not about consensus. You didn’t answer serious questions, and you only offered the same crappy data. > [@](#): > > Sadly, because you accept the RW Media’s version of reality, you’re tough to convince otherwise. Take this thread, you’ve been shown time and again that things you assert simply aren’t true, but based purely on faith you assume that the facts must be wrong, instead of what you believe. No, I raised serious questions about inconsistencies you honestly did not answer > [@](#): > > You think the evidence is crappy because you don’t understand it. No, I understand it just fine. Same old shit. It’s just so far from proving enough for what you’re asking us to do > [@](#): > > I’ve answered the ones I saw, why not specifically number them. Well, you didn’t quote any reasonable study actually taking into account growing cities (statistical methods are bullshit, I want to see actual site-visits and building histories). You’ve been wishy-washy about the gradual thing, your answer to the nucler solution issue is still bullshit, and you never defeated what I said about ice core samples. Your mentioning of cross-references to other events with other data is somewhat helpful, but going 50,000+ years with super certainty is still shaky, since there could have been things happening that you don’t know about. Oh, and you also didn’t cite anything serious that proves that you know the short terms effects are going to be bad. Why the hell would more water and heat cause droughts? The whole thing is a second proposal and needs a whole nother set of proof data ---
**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:** [November 18, 2014, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/700 "2014-11-18T02:35:27Z")
> [@EdwinAmi](#): > > Nope, sorry. You either have the evidence or you don’t. They do, this is because the published papers also do point at a **consensus of evidence** , wouldn’t you know. > **[There is no such thing as climate change denial](https://skepticalscience.com/no-such-thing-as-climate-change-denial.html)** > > This is a re-post from The Conversation > [@](#): > > There are two aspects to scientific consensus. Most importantly, you need a consensus of evidence – many different measurements pointing to a single, consistent conclusion. As the evidence piles up, you inevitably end up with near-unanimous agreement among actively researching scientists: a consensus of scientists. > [@](#): > > A number of surveys of the climate science community since the early 1990s have measured the level of scientific consensus that humans were causing global warming. Over time, the percentage of climate scientists agreeing that humans are causing global warming has steadily increased. As the body of evidence grows, the consensus is getting stronger. > > Two recent studies adopting different approaches have arrived at strikingly consistent results. A survey of over 3000 Earth scientists found that as the climate expertise increased, so did agreement about human-caused global warming. For climate scientists actively publishing climate research (79 scientists in total), there was 97% agreement. > > This result was confirmed in a separate analysis compiling a list of scientists who had made public declarations on climate change, both supporting and rejecting the consensus. Among scientists who had published peer-reviewed climate papers (908 scientists in total), the same result: 97% agreement. > > **While individual scientists have their personal views on climate change, they must back up their opinions with evidence-based research that withstands the scrutiny of the peer-reviewed process. An analysis of peer-reviewed climate papers published from 1993 to 2003 found that out of 928 papers, none rejected the consensus.** ---
**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:** [November 18, 2014, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/701 "2014-11-18T02:45:05Z")
> [@EdwinAmi](#): > > Well, you didn’t quote any reasonable study actually taking into account growing cities (statistical methods are bullshit, I want to see actual site-visits and building histories). You’ve been wishy-washy about the gradual thing, your answer to the nucler solution issue is still bullshit, and you never defeated what I said about ice core samples. Your mentioning of cross-references to other events with other data is somewhat helpful, but going 50,000+ years with super certainty is still shaky, since there could have been things happening that you don’t know about. Oh, and you also didn’t cite anything serious that proves that you know the short terms effects are going to be bad. Why the hell would more water and heat cause droughts? The whole thing is a second proposal and needs a whole nother set of proof data :rolleyes: The Berkeley Earth team of skeptics (already cited) did check, they indeed expected to find problems with the evidence, but since they **confirmed** what the scientists reported before (including taking into account growing cities) the denier sources have not bothered to tell their followers much about what this funded group of skeptics did find. > **[Summary of Findings - Berkeley Earth](https://berkeleyearth.org/archive/summary-of-findings/)** > > Our ongoing research includes the study of climate variability, extreme events, and the role of the oceans. View a three page summary of our initial project objectives and early results. A two page summary of our results to date, aimed primarily at... > **[2327-4581-1-104.pdf](https://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-104.pdf)** > > 960.93 KB > [@](#): > > The huge effects seen in prominent locations such as Tokyo have > caused concern that the T avg estimates might be unduly affected by > the urban heat effect. **It did not have a strong effect on our estimate– > which is not surprising given that urban areas are only 0.5% of the > land area** (according to the MOD500 map).The station slope analysis > shows that there are also a large number of sites with negative trend > lines. Some of these could be due to cooling effects resulting from > anthropogenic changes to the landscape. For example, in an urban > area if an asphalt surface is replaced by concrete, we might expect > the solar absorption to decrease, leading to a net cooling effect. Rural > areas could show temperature biases due to anthropogenic effects, for > example, changes in irrigation. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786.md?page=34) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786.md?page=36)