# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2014, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/141 "2014-05-22T03:30:17Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > A theory that can claim colder winters and warmer winters are both caused by global warming, that’s a goddamn joke. Fuck yeah. Someone once told me that both fridges and stoves can be operated using a gas flame. I laughed my 'cken ass off, natch. What a maroon. ---
**Author:** ![dublos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f08c70/32.png) [@dublos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dublos)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2014, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/142 "2014-05-22T07:30:46Z")
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. If _any_ scientist can come up with a repeatable experiment or verifiable analysis of the data that actually is a better fit for what the results we’ve seen so far, after a predictable and very human resistance to change, every single scientist on the planet will be redirecting their efforts to the direction of this new research. Why? Because those scientists want to be the one do discover “it” whatever it is. In some cases that’s because it gets them funding for their research, and in some cases it is purely ego, but there isn’t a scientist worthy of the name out there that is trying to follow the pack because they worry about being ostracized. And one thing that those who still believe in the garage / armchair scientist who can’t get published in the right journals so their discovery of the “Truth” is being suppressed are forgetting the very medium you and I are communicating in right now. It might be possible to be a garage / armchair scientist to have been ignored even 30-40 years ago, but not today… today that scientist can have his theory, data and methods in front of millions of people minutes after he or she has finished the final draft. And if they make any sort of compelling argument at least three other scientists will be working through that data and methodology to see if they can duplicate it, or solidly refute it. If they can duplicate it, you can bet those additional scientists will want to contribute to and get their names on the scientific journal article to follow. If they can solidly refute it, they will do so publicly and let the garage / armchair scientist respond and if they respond with something useful, the cycle begins again. I don’t care if you’re talking about climate change, evolution, how to make the best solar cell, or stem cells therapies to let mice with MS walk again, _that_ is how science works in the information age. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2014, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/143 "2014-05-22T13:49:43Z")
> [@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. Strawman much? Point out one case this has happened, please. As has been pointed out many, many, many times already, any scientist would love to find good evidence that warming is (1) not occurring or that (2) human activity is not a major factor. They would get tons of exposure and lots of money. The problem? No **honest** scientist can do this with the data we have on hand. You can make the same argument about any number of bullshit things. There is a consensus the moon is not made of green cheese. Oh noes, any scientist who claims it is risks being ridden out of town on a rail! Well sure, but not because of an exclusive, elitist cabal of scientists but because any scientist who claims a dairy origin to the moon needs to come up with some good evidence or be rightfully ignored. “But what if they’re wrong?” is not a good argument. But that seems to be all any climate change deniers care about. “What if they’re wrong?” Well, they might be. But any position needs to be backed by evidence, and there’s a severe dearth of that. ---
**Author:** ![dublos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f08c70/32.png) [@dublos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dublos)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2014, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/144 "2014-05-22T14:15:29Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > Strawman much? > > Point out one case this has happened, please. Actually I thought the entire remainder of my message was pointing out that this premise is a strawman? ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2014, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/145 "2014-05-22T16:53:44Z")
> [@dublos](#): > > Actually I thought the entire remainder of my message was pointing out that this premise is a strawman? Indeed so. My apologies. I should know better than to post before my first cup of coffee. ---
**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:** [May 22, 2014, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/146 "2014-05-22T19:16:48Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > **GIGObuster** does a very good job of demolishing your nonsensical claims at an expert level, but even I, no better than an undergraduate student (and a mathematics student, at that) can see how incredibly flawed your arguments are. I’m currently not wasting time reading GIGOs nonsense, but I will bet money he didn’t even mention the expert reviewers paper, the arguments and points in it, much less the issues related to the topic. Nor the quoted post from the other topic about this. But this is par for the course when it comes to actual issues about the problems with current science and climate and the global warming scare. Instead of countering the alarmists simply claims victory, with out ever even responding to anything. Has there been any response at all since I re-posted the post from 2011? > [@](#): > > That the IPCC’s models are non-falsifiable places the IPCC’s models outside science, as virtually all present day scientists define “science.” However, that the models which provide the basis for the IPCC’s assessment reports are not scientific models is obscured by a misprepresentation by the IPCC. Under this misrepresentation, the IPCC represents that the models are the product of scientists. However while these people have scientific credentials, they are not acting as scientists. By calling them scientists, the IPCC muddies the waters sufficiently for scientifically naive politicians, journalists and others to take the IPCC’s assessment reports to be works of science. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12171215&postcount=133](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12171215&postcount=133) How do you counter that? It’s a concise statement, with logic and reason and facts involved. It even has a source (cite) The “demolition of your argument” consist of somebody saying “that’s not true”, which means nothing at all. > [@](#): > > To acquire the ability to see through the IPCC’s misrepresentation, one needs to understand the distinction between a prediction and a projection. A prediction is a proposition which states the probabilities of the various possible outcomes of a statistical event. In testing a predictive model, one draws a sampling of this model’s predictions and observes the actual outcomes. The model is falsified if the predicted probabilities of outcomes fail to match the observed relative frequencies of these outcomes. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12171215&postcount=133](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12171215&postcount=133) Once again, avoiding responding to that doesn’t mean you destroyed an argument. > [@](#): > > As the IPCC defines a “projection,” it is a mathematical function that maps the time to the average global surface temperature. While a projection supports comparison of the projected to the observed average global surface temperature, it fails to support falsifiability in the associated model. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12171215&postcount=133](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12171215&postcount=133) Once again, what was the devastating professional response from GIGO? I bet money there was none at all. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2014, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/147 "2014-05-22T20:40:13Z")
**FXMastermind** : You incorrectly attributed material I posted to **dublos**. ---
**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:** [May 22, 2014, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/148 "2014-05-22T21:03:42Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > I’m currently not wasting time reading GIGOs nonsense, but I will bet money he didn’t even mention the expert reviewers paper, the arguments and points in it, much less the issues related to the topic. There was none, because that reviewer was not what it claimed, like virtually every “expert” contrarian that is put forward by FXMatermind. > **[You, too, can be a leading climate scientist | ScienceBlogs](https://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/05/09/you-too-can-be-a-leading-clima)** > > In the olden days to become a leading climate scientist you had to work hard, do lots of research and publish it in good journals. Now there's a quicker method. Put out a press release. > A group of leading climate scientists has announced the... > [@](#): > > “Expert reviewer for the IPCC” doesn’t mean that they asked him to review material — all it means is that he asked to see the draft report. The only real requirement to be a reviewer is to sign an agreement not to publicly comment on the draft. > Of course, just because he hasn’t any qualifications or experience in climate research doesn’t mean that he might not be able to offer some insight. Let’s look at his public comments on the draft of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: > > > [@](#): > > > > It is a piece of strident propaganda. … > > > > ``` > > They make no bones about suppressing any information they do not like. The most important example is McKitrick and Michaels 2004 Climate Research Vol 26 pages 159-173 which shows that the surface temperature record is biased. A statistical study on station records and the total record between 1979 and 2000 shows a significant influence of population increase, fuek usage, prosperity, and even literacy. > > > > ``` > > \*\* > Not to mention the significant influence of feeding degrees into software the expected radians. So his “most important example” of them suppressing information they do not like was that they ignored a paper that contained serious errors.\*\* > > Also former Met Service chief meteorologist Augie Auer, who offers this: > > > [@](#): > > > > Prof Auer said that three quarters of the planet was ocean, and 95 percent of the greenhouse effect was governed by water vapour. > > > > ``` > > “Of that remaining 5 percent, only about 3.6 percent is governed by CO2 and when you break it down even further, studies have shown that the anthropogenic (man-made) contribution to CO2 versus the natural is about 3.2 percent. > > > > “So if you multiply the total contribution 3.6 by the man-made portion of it, 3.2, you find out that the anthropogenic contribution of CO2 to the the global greenhouse effect is 0.117 percent, roughly 0.12 percent, that’s like 12c in $100. > > > > “It’s miniscule … it’s nothing,” he said. > > > > ``` > > Actually, humans have increased the CO2 content of the atmosphere by 30%. You would have hoped that a “leading climate scientist”, or a climate scientist, or even a plain old scientist of any kind would not have got something so basic so wrong. Yes, that talking point/reviewer is that old too, the sorry point was made by an inexperienced in climate scientist. The point here is that just as FX is all thumbs with quotes, he is also all thumbs with the sources that he thinks are the beesnees. So, so much for him claiming that there was no reply, the take home lesson is that there is a sea of information that FX is willfully ignoring out there regarding the underhandedness and chicanery that the Mc Experts are committing in their fight to get us to waste even more of out economy in the future by not dealing with the issue now. ---
**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:** [May 22, 2014, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/149 "2014-05-22T21:10:57Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > **FXMastermind** : You incorrectly attributed material I posted to **dublos**. I’m sorry, it certainly wasn’t by intent. I can ask a Mod to fix it I think. ---
**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:** [May 22, 2014, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/150 "2014-05-22T21:11:14Z")
Correcting that last paragraph: So, so much for FX claiming that there was no reply, many did before and added Vincent Gray into the unreliable narrator column. The take home lesson is that there is a sea of information that FX is willfully ignoring out there regarding the underhandedness and chicanery that the Mc Experts are committing in their fight to get us to waste even more of our economy in the future by not dealing with the issue 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:** [May 22, 2014, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/151 "2014-05-22T21:16:57Z")
At least I have to thank \*\*FXMastermind \*\*for pointing at the many examples of sorry research and misrepresentations made by even serious contrarians and deniers, anyone that thinks that there is an equal number of researchers using discredited research in the other side has a broken equivalency radar. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2014, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/152 "2014-05-22T21:20:53Z")
> [@](#): > > I’m currently not wasting time reading GIGOs nonsense Just because he schools you in debates and is not consistently wrong doesn’t make what he posts nonsense, you know… ---
**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:** [May 22, 2014, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/153 "2014-05-22T22:41:53Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Just because he schools you in debates and is not consistently wrong doesn’t make what he posts nonsense, you know… Speaking of nonsense, FX is also relying on some poster that uses very silly “logic” to declare the IPCC and all other climate science as unfalsifiable, the cliche of science fiction of “reversing the polarity” should be enough to keep in mind to allow many to think about simple ways to falsify all what climate scientists or the IPCC is telling us, in the case of the scenarios, then it just means that if an specific level of greenhouse gases is released and the scenario that depends on that amount does not take place then the thing is falsified. Of course, the falsification of a single item does not mean that then the danger is gone. Far from it. The complication that deniers out there do not see because it will make them look even more foolish, is that more than once the outcomes are turning to be \*\*worse \*\*than the predictions. Particularly in the case of the ice loss and therefore the expected rise of the oceans got into worse levels. Can one then report that the scenarios in those cases were falsified as the results were worst than expected? I guess one can, but that only goes to the conservative scenarios they made regarding the ice loss and ocean rise (To be fair, the IPCC punted in the previous report because back then there was no good evidence of the acceleration of the loss of ice in the poles and in the mountains) To me it just means that the IPCC was too conservative, and that should tell you how irresponsible are the few skeptics, that abuse of their experience to pontificate outside their area of expertise. Because the default position for them is to tell us that very little to nothing will take place, after all, all what the IPCC is telling us is not science and not happening or beneficial or easy to overcome if we do nothing now. Or course, because they told us that “we should not worrying about the ice loss”, that turned to be poppy cock, so I do think that the falsification test remains a bigger problem for the “reviewers” of the IPCC. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2014, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/154 "2014-05-22T22:53:06Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Speaking of nonsense, FX is also relying on some poster that uses very silly “logic” to declare the IPCC and all other climate science as unfalsifiable I must have missed that. To whom are you referring? ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2014, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/155 "2014-05-22T23:32:55Z")
I haven’t followed this whole thread. However I found a couple things that might provide a little food for thought, especially for those who seem to believe that the science of AGW (or is it CAGW? or CCC? I forget which one we are using this week) is absolutely solid and that we know everything. A paper was just published in Nature. The paper finds that: > [@](#): > > semi-arid ecosystems in the Southern Hemisphere may be largely responsible for changes in global concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide Link to [Nature](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature13341.html). Why is this important? If the paper is correct, then our understanding of the CO2 cycle is badly mistaken. That is a big deal. Another paper published in Journal of Climate claims: > [@](#): > > “The surface of the world’s oceans has been warming since the beginning of industrialisation. In addition to this, multidecadal sea surface temperature (SST) variations of internal [natural] origin exist. Evidence suggests that the North Atlantic Ocean exhibits the strongest multidecadal SST variations and that these variations are connected to the overturning circulation.” > > “…we conclude that AMOC [natural] variability contributed significantly to North Atlantic SST [Sea Surface Temperature] trends since the mid-19th century.” Why is this important? Because, if it holds up, the SST (Sea Surface Temperature) trends have a significant natural component that we don’t understand and have (since we don’t understand it) underestimated. [Link](http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00651.1?af=R&). Another paper published in CO2 Science finds: > [@](#): > > this newest analysis of the most comprehensive data set available suggests that there has been _ **no dramatic increase - or any increase, for that matter - in the mean rate of global sea level rise due to the historical increase in the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration** _. Why is this important? Well, after all the recent news reports that lead one to believe that the whole world is gonna be flooded sometime next week due to CO2 melting the ice caps, it turns out that the sea level rise isn’t due to CO2. [Link](http://www.co2science.org/articles/V17/N20/C1.php). Slee ---
**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:** [May 22, 2014, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/156 "2014-05-22T23:51:23Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I must have missed that. To whom are you referring? On post 146 and one before FX links to poster **Terry Oldberg** ’s tirade on how the IPCC projections are unfalsifiable, besides being a bit off the point, that line of attack was silly one. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2014, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/157 "2014-05-23T00:08:02Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > On post 146 and one before FX links to poster **Terry Oldberg** ’s tirade on how the IPCC projections are unfalsifiable How does that brand _“all other climate science as unfalsifiable”_? ---
**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:** [May 23, 2014, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/158 "2014-05-23T00:14:14Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > I haven’t followed this whole thread. However I found a couple things that might provide a little food for thought, especially for those who seem to believe that the science of AGW (or is it CAGW? or CCC? I forget which one we are using this week) is absolutely solid and that we know everything. And you must had missed this that was posted many times before: [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/a69_owv4jEE/maxresdefault.jpg ""We don't know enough..." How to talk to an OSTRICH") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a69_owv4jEE) > [@](#): > > It’s true that Earth’s a massive jigsaw puzzle, with lots of pieces intricately fitting together. But, Richard Alley argues, we already know enough to see the Big Picture. The missing pieces of scientific understanding - exactly how clouds work, how extreme weather will change with global warming - are important, but we can already see how Earth works. > [@sleestak](#): > > A paper was just published in Nature. The paper finds that: > Link to [Nature](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature13341.html). > > Why is this important? If the paper is correct, then our understanding of the CO2 cycle is badly mistaken. > > That is a big deal. Of course, but as NPR interviewed the scientists, they clarified that that was not a “show stopper” it was likely that it was only for a few years and then as the vegetation is in desert areas they are bound to dry, or burn in a few years releasing once again the CO2 in the atmosphere, another thing that I got from the interview is that the sequestration was big but not enough to overcome what we are still spewing. > [@sleestak](#): > > Another paper published in Journal of Climate claims: > > Why is this important? Because, if it holds up, the SST (Sea Surface Temperature) trends have a significant natural component that we don’t understand and have (since we don’t understand it) underestimated. > > [Link](http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00651.1?af=R&). Using models there, now who told us to not rely on them? Besides the contradictory nature of contrarians showing up again, the issue here is to miss what they also conclude: > [@](#): > > In our analysis we assume that the AMOC is not interacting with the global > radiative balance. That this is really the case in our control run is supported by the small correlation found between global average SST and AMOC on multidecadal time scales. In essence they do report that there is a need to investigate more but like the IPCC would tell you better information is needed to counter what was found before and this study does not look like it contradicts much of what was found already. > [@sleestak](#): > > Another paper published in CO2 Science finds: > > Why is this important? Well, after all the recent news reports that lead one to believe that the whole world is gonna be flooded sometime next week due to CO2 melting the ice caps, it turns out that the sea level rise isn’t due to CO2. > > [Link](http://www.co2science.org/articles/V17/N20/C1.php). > > Slee Using CO2 Science is the like citing Answers in Genesis in a biology discussion. ---
**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:** [May 23, 2014, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/159 "2014-05-23T00:15:39Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > How does that brand _“all other climate science as unfalsifiable”_? That was the point of **FXMastermind** , and that Darwin and Newton were also unfalsifiable too. So deal with him please. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2014, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/160 "2014-05-23T00:29:39Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > That was the point of **FXMastermind** , and that Darwin and Newton were also unfalsifiable too. So deal with him please. What, you want I should copy-and-paste what was already posted? I asked for clarification from you because I had no idea what you meant by _“FX is also relying on some poster that uses very silly “logic” to declare the IPCC and all other climate science as unfalsifiable”_. I read that and thought: _wait, what?_ To the extent that I see no need to clarify (a) FX’s views, or to clarify (b) various of the responses that have swiftly popped up right here in response, it’s hardly my place to “deal with” him or them; this thread already suffices, clarity already ensued. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786.md?page=9)