One thing to notice is that indeed these researches are doing a good job, specially by pointing out the limitations or how useful this would be in the climate change front. The problem for the ones looking at that as being a counter to the man-caused global warming is that:
No, I only have access to the Abstract.
I find it extremely hard to believe that quote came from an article published in the journal Nature. If you would read the abstract again you should see why I’m staring at you in complete disbelief.
Again, perhaps this is fully demonstrated in the text of the article, but frankly, just reading the abstract I just can’t see why you call these twenty-five folks denialists. These are honest people doing honest work and reporting their results honestly.
I was referring to the Climate Crocks one.
Of course it is clear why, your sources misrepresented what the scientists were doing. SO no, I do not see them as deniers either because (as one can hear in the interview of a lead CERN scientist posted by Climate Crocks) reaching for that research as a counter for man made green house gases causing the current warming is silly.
:rolleyes:
Cite where I do call them denialists or it never happened. **The deniers **are the ones that grabbed this research and made unreasonable conclusions. (And the deniers I was referring to are denying what the scientists here concluded indeed)
Ah … but it’s the Nature article that supports my statement … that global warming is falsifiable. Climate Crocks looks self-published to me, kinda has that feel of being a crock.
I’m wondering if we’re talking about the twenty-five co-signers of the Nature article …
Who are these denialists you speak of?
You haven’t said what is being misrepresented in the Nature article.
:rolleyes:
So, no. Clearly you can not find where I supposedly did call them deniers as you claimed.
It is clear why it is important for you to claim that I’m calling the the twenty-five co-signers of the Nature article deniers. Just FUD. Once again, the cite I made reports the misinterpretation of their research is for the deniers to claim that the research at CERN was the “final nail in the coffin” for man made caused global warming. It was not. And as the other cites I made to Trinopus show it is really not an important factor in the overall picture. Their research is useful to understand an aspect of the issue, but plenty of research already made shows that it is not likely to be important to drive the global warming issue. The point that you painfully miss is that the researchers are not wrong, only the ones that claimed that their research was conclusive regarding a related issue.
Honestly, I don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m reading the abstract and I don’t see how this leads to any “final nail in the coffin”. Scientific falsification is a thing that is published in a peer-reviewed journal, like Nature. Things that are self-published are philosophical, one person’s opinion.
Maybe I’m reading the OP too narrowly here, because global warming can never be falsified if one’s philosophy is infallible.
:rolleyes:
Read it again, I consider what Nature and the scientists say and what Climate Crocks reports to be 2 different things. You are being very naive if you think that what I and Climate Crocks describe is not in the background and the reason for the misrepresentation, many did and continue to claim that the scientists are “like deniers” or that they are on your team. That is indeed bull. What the scientists report is good for cloud research, and no one is denying that. What you can not produce also * is a good cite that shows that it is good to claim that the scientists at CERN are claiming that their research dismisses the man made caused global warming.
- Besides a cite confirming your unfounded claim that I call the CERN researchers deniers.
Cite please.
As pointed before, the misrepresentation is not coming from you, but it is clear that you swallowed up the one made by the deniers.
CERN did good science and when one takes into account what the interview posted at Climate Crocks shows, then there was no reason for the denier sources to claim that the CERN research did falsify man made caused global warming.
The armchair scientists were correct in one item, this could indeed had been a possible way to falsify or modify what to expect out of the theory of global warming gases, but the other science articles cited shows that even if cosmic rays are an influence it is likely to be not an important factor.
If the numbers showed for example that cosmic rays and cloud formation was going to definitely overwhelm the positive influence of human made CO2 then even if the AGW theory is right we have evidence that would tell us that we should not worry much about the issue.
Do you really think this effort was not an attempt at falsification that fell short?
No …
I’m asking for a citation of something that is misrepresented.
:rolleyes:
So why did the Financial Post, the Telegraph, WAWT and many other denial sites run with a headline that says the exact opposite of what the study actually found?
Are you then confused that simply because this falsification effort did not falsify AGW or the expected consequences that therefore to you it is not a valid attempt at falsification?
How about what Berkeley Earth and Muller attempted to do then?
I wouldn’t know until I read them. Do you have a link?
[scratches nose] I’m presenting the CLOUD research as an example of a valid attempt at falsification. How’d you get the idea I wasn’t?
I have no idea what you mean here, all I’m asking for is an example of someone misrepresenting the research results. You’re being vague about who these denialists are and what their effect is on scientific research is.
A lot of it was posted and discussed at Realclimate:
Because it failed, of course since you acknowledge that is a valid attempt one wonders why you claimed that falsification was not possible in this subject.
:rolleyes:
The links to the Financial Post and The Telegraph are in the article cited.
The source of your sorry idea that I and many consider the CERN scientists to be deniers can be figured out. And no, it is clear that you are not paying attention when you claim that I’m vague.
The important thing then is to figure out what was your sorry source of your claim about the CERN scientists being deniers. That was grossly wrong, and you do need a cite to show who is supporting your peculiar view.
Ah, the confusion is on your part then.
The reality is that you are not even wrong. So any luck in finding any good support for your claim that the CERN scientists were deniers? You also are not dealing with the implication of the failed attempt by Berkeley Earth. Sceptics that do research to investigate the assumed errors and attempted to falsify this reached the opposite conclusion of what you assume.
You need to understand that since the falsifications are failing then the logic is simple: this issue has support from virtually all climate scientists also thanks to those falsifications attempts coming short.
Global Warming, short-term.
Pattern, long-term.
Research on this, you’ll get what I mean.
The above gets my nomination for “most useless post ever”, but I admit that there are quite a few other worthy contenders. 
Looks more like a failed verse
wolfpup, don’t be so spiteful
with that recent failed haiku
as in the past I have seen worse
I’m terribly sorry… :o
Grin! Beautiful! GIGObuster, you’re invited to read poetry at my wedding!
(Well, y’know, if I ever get married…)
If by “short-term” you mean tens of thousands of years and “long-term” as hundreds of thousands of years, then I think the OP is asking the wrong question. It would have to be “Can global warming be proved?” where global warming is the continuous rising of average global temperatures over the next hundred thousand years instead of what should be a period of global cooling.
If we consider the ice core data as “ordinary” evidence, then the “ordinary” claim would be that we’ve reached the maxima and we’ll see falling average global temperatures over the next 20,000 years.
However, if we consider the current levels of atmospheric CO[sub]2[/sub] concentrations as “extraordinary” evidence, then that leads to the “extraordinary” claim of continued global warming over the same time period.
Can the cyclic nature of global temperatures be falsified? Of course it can, or it’s not science. 20,000 years from now we’ll know for sure.