Is global warming falsifiable?

[EdwinAmi]

You’re the one asserting that they’re not

No, I’m asserting they MAY not. And that you better be a hell of a lot more sure if you want to impoverish my country for decades to come

Using that logic nothing would ever get done. Scientists and experts in the field have confidence in their technology,

No, no. Those are fields where they work on actual machines and tools and technology that they actually build, so they know with extreme certainty if it doesn’t work, if they have the wrong idea about the science. You’re asking us to take on blind faith predictions of the past thousands of years ago. Even archaeologists with tons of physical evidence never tell us whether people were shorter back then or if this or that country died from that disease or war or whatever with that much confidence.

almost all of the world’s experts

Nope. There’s that false claim of “all the experts” again. I can play with statistics, too.

Why do you assume they’re wrong for

I don’t assume they’re wrong. I’m telling you that you can’t be as certain as the AGW people are claiming they are, given what they’re asking the country to do

the experts in the field feel confident in them

The experts in the field can’t even tell me what the weather is going to be like in a month. Everyone we “know” about the long term past is largely assumptions based on loose data.

I assume such confidence comes from ice cores matching up with other information we have

What information? NO ONE WAS AROUND BACK THEN.
Again, it’s an issue of CONFIDENCE/CERTAINTY

Digging up stones that look like bones sounds simplistic too.

Except that there’s like a 1 in 1 million chance that a bunch of stones would be just by chance perfectly shaped like bones.
Whereas there’s little way to know the accuracy of this ice core stuff,
again, with any CERTAINTY

That’s why I’m not so arrogant as to assume that the vast majority of them are unanimously wrong about long tested and accepted procedures.

Nobody ever said that.

It’s all about CERTAINTY. Want me to spend a trillion dollars? You better make a GOD DAMNED BETTER case than what we have now, way better

Clearly all you can do is argue by strawman, claiming I said things I didnt

[Lobohan]

@FXMastermind

Problems with ice core data, and assumptions based on it, are numerous

Paleoclimatology | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

Your input is nonsense. This is talking about reducing known problems to increase accuracy.

[FXMastermind]

It’s from ice core data that we know with absolute certainty that during the Holocene climatic optimum, sea levels had to be around 10 feet (3 meters) higher worldwide.

That much is certain at least. But you will hear “experts” claim “the sea level was never this high before during the Holocene”. It’s one reason I m skeptical of so many claims made by alarmists.

[EdwinAmi]

Thing is, you’ve got to bring some evidence forward to support any new understanding

No, the people PROPOSING a theory have got to bring evidence, and they have brought very little ultimately, when you consider how most testable, hands-on, small-scale science works.

Climatologists have the evidence.

Very little, in the grand scheme of science.
All they have is a crude theory based on a largely incomplete understanding of how weather works, with a very small data set with inconsistent measuring devices, and no taking into account of expanding cities creating more heat, some archaeological evidence that we can’t actually verify with direct measurements, all so that we can spend 1 trillion dollars and impoverish our country with technologies that don’t really work, when by the same science we could instead push the world to nuclear and that would necessarily solve the problem, except for shrinking cities to reduce oil use, and they have no proposal to end the suburbs. And no explanation as to why we should believe the whole flooding thing is going to happen extremely quickly, which is ANOTHER scientific proposition, when by their own claims all the processes of planet earth work on MUCH MUCH larger time scales
Oh, and models that have spotty predictive results at best and which they won’t release the code to.

That’s all they “have”

[Great_Antibob]

@EdwinAmi

What information? NO ONE WAS AROUND BACK THEN.
Again, it’s an issue of CONFIDENCE/CERTAINTY

Yes, it is, and there’s a high level of confidence/certainty.

The lack of a person to directly observe is not a deal breaker. Nobody was around to witness the birth of the solar system, either, and we have pretty high confidence in our estimates of its age (within a reasonable error bound).

Is the confidence up to certainty? Nope. Does it have to be? Nope.

There’s precious little we are absolutely certain about. Even stuff we think we “know” has error bars on it. That doesn’t stop us from acting on it, because those error bars are generally small.

@EdwinAmi

It’s all about CERTAINTY. Want me to spend a trillion dollars? You better make a GOD DAMNED BETTER case than what we have now, way better

You have a trillion dollars?

Well, the case is good enough for an actual trillion dollar operation - the DoD. They are taking the risk quite seriously and planning accordingly.

It’s a very strange argument, in any case. The free market apparently has profitable solutions to nearly infinite problems across a host of industries and involving all sorts of regulations, laws, protocols, etc (some of them environmental, in fact) but will quickly fall apart for this one problem. That doesn’t add up. More likely, somebody figures out how to profit nicely from it and add to the economy. Maybe not the people decrying any effort at it, but I imagine they’ll go the way of buggy whip manufacturers decrying the automobile.

[FXMastermind]

Here’s an example of the terrible reasoning used to promote catastrophic global warming.

As an aside, it’s worth noting that even if the Holocene had been as warm as or warmer than today, it would do nothing to undermine the theories and data that indicate today’s warming is rapid and anthropogenic.

'It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum'--This period was not global and not like today | Grist

We know with certainty that the HCO was much warmer than now, and that sea level was much higher, and that it was from melting ice, ice that is now locked up in the ice caps, mostly Greenland. We also know, based on this same data, that it got colder after the HCO, especially in the NH, and that the 3 meters of sea level was turned back into ice, which is why the oceans are lower now.

If conditions now were to return to those during the HCO, the oceans would rise, and ice would melt, and it would be unusual, since no ice core data shows a repeat of the climatic optimum in any ice age cycle. It would certainly be strong evidence for the CO2 theory if we experience anything close to the HCO again.

[GIGObuster]

@EdwinAmi

No, the people PROPOSING a theory have got to bring evidence, and they have brought very little ultimately, when you consider how most testable, hands-on, small-scale science works.

Very little, in the grand scheme of science.

Tell that to the fellows that have to move all those hundreds of pounds of ice cores at the National Ice Core Lab

http://www.usgs.gov/core_science_systems/access/summer_2012/article-7.html

@EdwinAmi

All they have is a crude theory based on a largely incomplete understanding of how weather works, with a very small data set with inconsistent measuring devices, and no taking into account of expanding cities creating more heat, some archaeological evidence that we can’t actually verify with direct measurements, all so that we can spend 1 trillion dollars and impoverish our country with technologies that don’t really work, when by the same science we could instead push the world to nuclear and that would necessarily solve the problem, except for shrinking cities to reduce oil use, and they have no proposal to end the suburbs.
Oh, and models that have spotty predictive results at best and which they won’t release the code to.

That’s all they “have”

Not really, Muller at Berkeley Earth thought so too and with funding from Koch and others set to demonstrate precisely what you claim here.

He and his team found the opposite.

About Berkeley Earth - Berkeley Earth

Berkeley Earth was conceived by Richard and Elizabeth Muller in early 2010 when they found merit in some of the concerns of skeptics. They organized a group of scientists to reanalyze the Earth’s surface temperature record, and published their initial findings in 2012. Berkeley Earth became an independent non-profit 501(c)(3) in February 2013.

From 2010-2012, Berkeley Earth systematically addressed the five major concerns that global warming skeptics had identified, and did so in a systematic and objective manner. The first four were potential biases from data selection, data adjustment, poor station quality, and the urban heat island effect. Our analysis showed that these issues did not unduly bias the record. The fifth concern related to the over reliance on large and complex global climate models by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the attribution of the recent temperature increase to anthropogenic forcings. We obtained a long and accurate record, spanning 250 years and showed that it could be well-fit with a simple model that included a volcanic term and, as an anthropogenic proxy, CO2 concentration. We concluded that the record could be reproduced by just these two contributions, and that inclusion of direct variations in solar intensity did not contribute to the fit.

We released our analysis, programs and established an open database with all the raw data used in our studies. We believe that now it is our responsibility to communicate our findings, in particular with prominent stakeholders familiar with the reasons for global warming skepticism that Berkeley Earth addressed. Additionally, many programs to mitigate global warming ignore the dominant role that China, India, and the rest of the developing world will play in future emissions; we will investigate and propose new options to reduce emissions in those countries.

[EdwinAmi]

And how do climate scientists profit from this?

Who said that’s what I’m talking about? I’m not framing this in a profit motive way. I’m just saying it’s an enormous cost they’re asking us to bear, with little proof.

People aren’t realistically looking for all power to be from sustainable sources. Just much of it. And I’m pro nuclear, although, I’d want it to be in places that are geologically stable as possible.

Nope, sorry. In practice all the environmental stuff is being used to quash nuclear, and in fact a lot of the greenies explicitly want us to use all renewables. A lot of the more extremists, in particular, but that isn’t insignificant, since the movement is run by the ascetics.

You are asserting a conspiracy that is asinine.

I’m not asserting a conspiracy. It’s a mix of some profit motive, as scientists do get grants for this kind of research, but mostly ideological blindness, for an ideology that thrives on a feeling of self righteousness.

97% of the world’s experts agree it’s happening

Nope, sorry. We all know how statistics can lie. Please don’t play that game around here.

Which of those two, makes more sense to you?

What makes sense to me is if you want me to spend a trillion dollars, you have to make a MUCH better case. And not negate yourself by fighting the only alternative that would help, nuclear.

THE CASE FOR GLOBAL WARMING IS LUKEWARM AT BEST. THERE ARE FLAWS THAT FROM A SCIENTIFIC STANDPOINT ARE HUGE, AND SELF-DEFEATING MESSAGES LIKE THE QUASHING OF NUCLEAR AND THE CLAIMS OF A FAST CHANGEOVER If this problem is as huge as they say it is, then they should be scrambling to make everything everywhere run on nuclear, as well as proposing we end democracy on zoning laws, end fannie mae and Freddie mac, end the public sector DPW unions, and flat out deliberately blow up huge sections of suburbs in order to cut down on fossil fuels used through roads and cars, and replace them cheaply with lots of rail and public transit. But they never propose that part because they know Americans won’t go for it because they love their houses. Furthermore, they’re claiming that this change is going to happen fast, when we know that the climate moves very slow. How could you also know it’ll happen super fast? THAT’S A WHOLE NOTHER SCIENTIFIC PROPOSITION. Even 500 years in earth’s historical time would be blindingly fast, but it would be so slow as to make the whole thing not even a concern for the human race.

Huge inconsistencies, to say the least

[Lobohan]

@EdwinAmi

No, I’m asserting they MAY not. And that you better be a hell of a lot more sure if you want to impoverish my country for decades to come

The current level of confidence is very high.

No, no. Those are fields where they work on actual machines and tools and technology that they actually build, so they know with extreme certainty if it doesn’t work, if they have the wrong idea about the science. You’re asking us to take on blind faith predictions of the past thousands of years ago. Even archaeologists with tons of physical evidence never tell us whether people were shorter back then or if this or that country died from that disease or war or whatever with that much confidence.

So? Archaeology isn’t as reliant on physical science as the climate is.

Nope. There’s that false claim of “all the experts” again. I can play with statistics, too.

STOP. You are utterly wrong. Almost all of the world’s climate scientists agree that climate change is happening.

I don’t assume they’re wrong. I’m telling you that you can’t be as certain as the AGW people are claiming they are, given what they’re asking the country to do

The fact that the vast majority of experts think that it is extremely likely (as in a 95% chance) that humans are driving the temp up. The fact is that they think that. You can disagree with their assessment based on your layperson’s ignorance, but who cares?

The experts in the field can’t even tell me what the weather is going to be like in a month. Everyone we “know” about the long term past is largely assumptions based on loose data.

Weather isn’t the same thing as climate. Your ignorance on the subject is coloring your opinion.

What information? NO ONE WAS AROUND BACK THEN.
Again, it’s an issue of CONFIDENCE/CERTAINTY

Other information, like if there is a volcanic eruption one year, it will show up as sediment in various cores. That can match secondary dating techniques. Just because you have no idea how they do it, doesn’t mean they don’t. Your ignorance isn’t equal to an experts knowledge.

Except that there’s like a 1 in 1 million chance that a bunch of stones would be just by chance perfectly shaped like bones.
Whereas there’s little way to know the accuracy of this ice core stuff,
again, with any CERTAINTY

Their certainty is high because of overlapping information, like those volcanoes I mentioned above.

Nobody ever said that.

It’s all about CERTAINTY. Want me to spend a trillion dollars? You better make a GOD DAMNED BETTER case than what we have now, way better

You’re angry. Why is that? It’s because you think this is a scam. It’s not. You’re the one being scammed, by liars on the RW media circuit who sow doubt because people who put carbon in the air want to keep profits up.

95% certain. The vast majority of climate scientists. This is a fact. Nothing you, a layperson can think up as an objection is likely to be something that the thousands of experts haven’t thought of. For instance, do you think you can figure out, as a lay person, a problem with brain surgery? Or nuclear physics? Or molecular biology? Why are you accepting of those experts, yet ignoring the climate scientists and assuming that your layperson’s knowledge is superior to theirs?

Clearly all you can do is argue by strawman, claiming I said things I didnt

I am attempting to discuss this in good faith. Strawman doesn’t mean making your points look shitty.

[EdwinAmi]

Well, the case is good enough for an actual trillion dollar operation - the DoD

They want us to spend a trillion dollars in a matter of one to three decades, and have us try to rely on hugely unreliable green techs for electricity. Just attempting to build and runn all those solar panels and wind farms and shit would probably bankrupt the country

So NO, the case is far from good enough for this kind of an endeavour.

Not to mention, AGAIN, that it DOESN"T MAKE SENSE when just going full nuclear would solve the problem neatly. Yet the same environmentalists oppose yucca mountain.

It’s all bullshit and any idiot can see right through it

[EdwinAmi]

STOP. You are utterly wrong. Almost all of the world’s climate scientists agree that climate change is happening.

Brah, you’re just fucking lying. If you really think this, you’re lying to yourself, and too easily believing stupid statistical games. For example, what defines “expert”?

[EdwinAmi]

Nothing you, a layperson can think up as an objection is likely to be something that the thousands of experts haven’t thought of.

Yet you fail to explain why they so adamantly oppose nuclear power, or why they can’t describe how they know this change is going to happen in less than 100 years when large earth processes happen on the scale of eons

[EdwinAmi]

Strawman doesn’t mean making your points look shitty

Well, no, above you were claiming I say things I didn’t say, by taking the things I did say and taking them to the extreme, which I never took them to. That’s called strawmanning

[FXMastermind]

@EdwinAmi

Brah, you’re just fucking lying.

A kind word of caution, it’s against the rules to directly call anyone a liar in the Great Debates forum.

[FXMastermind]

@EdwinAmi

That’s called strawmanning

Welcome to the Dope. Stawman arguments are common, and good luck convincing anyone that they are doing it.

[wolfpup]

@EdwinAmi

Nope, sorry. In practice all the environmental stuff is being used to quash nuclear, …

If you ever get any actual facts, come back and visit us again.

Top climate change scientists’ letter to policy influencers | CNN

[FXMastermind]

@EdwinAmi

It’s all bullshit and any idiot can see right through it

Are you familiar with the Pit here?

[Lobohan]

@EdwinAmi

Who said that’s what I’m talking about? I’m not framing this in a profit motive way. I’m just saying it’s an enormous cost they’re asking us to bear, with little proof.

You said:

Yup, there was no one around then, and no scientific instruments, let alone science, but trust us 10000% when we say we know these things for a fact, and give us a trillion dollars and impoverish the country like we tell you to.

It’s not little proof. You’re wrong about that. Once again, the vast majority of climate scientists think it is at least 95% certain. That’s a fact. If you can’t accept that fact, it’s you bowing to ideology over reason.

Nope, sorry. In practice all the environmental stuff is being used to quash nuclear, and in fact a lot of the greenies explicitly want us to use all renewables. A lot of the more extremists, in particular, but that isn’t insignificant, since the movement is run by the ascetics.

There is a spectrum of opinion. That doesn’t change the fact that the vast majority of climate scientists think global warming is happening with a very high degree of certainty.

I’m not asserting a conspiracy. It’s a mix of some profit motive, as scientists do get grants for this kind of research, but mostly ideological blindness, for an ideology that thrives on a feeling of self righteousness.

You think ideological blindness is coloring the perceptions of the vast majority of climate scientists and just causing them to make up shit? You are better off with the conspiracy.

Nope, sorry. We all know how statistics can lie. Please don’t play that game around here.

It is a fact that the vast majority of climate scientists think AGW is extremely likely. A fact. Ignoring it is only prolonging your ignorance.

What makes sense to me is if you want me to spend a trillion dollars, you have to make a MUCH better case. And not negate yourself by fighting the only alternative that would help, nuclear.

Solar and wind are useful. Nuclear has its place, but it being able to render entire cities barren in the event of natural disaster or terrorism is something that intelligent people need to consider.

THE CASE FOR GLOBAL WARMING IS LUKEWARM AT BEST. THERE ARE FLAWS THAT FROM A SCIENTIFIC STANDPOINT ARE HUGE, AND SELF-DEFEATING MESSAGES LIKE THE QUASHING OF NUCLEAR AND THE CLAIMS OF A FAST CHANGEOVER

The case is actually persuasive enough that the vast majority of climate scientists think that AGW is extremely likely. Allcaps doesn’t make you right.

If this problem is as huge as they say it is, then they should be scrambling to make everything everywhere run on nuclear, as well as proposing we end democracy on zoning laws, end fannie mae and Freddie mac, end the public sector DPW unions, and flat out deliberately blow up huge sections of suburbs in order to cut down on fossil fuels used through roads and cars, and replace them cheaply with lots of rail and public transit.

No one is advocating that because it’s stupid. That level of response is a hobgoblin you created.

But they never propose that part because they know Americans won’t go for it because they love their houses.

No, they don’t propose that because it’s a stupid idea.

Furthermore, they’re claiming that this change is going to happen fast, when we know that the climate moves very slow.

Most sea level projections are in the centuries.

How could you also know it’ll happen super fast? THAT’S A WHOLE NOTHER SCIENTIFIC PROPOSITION.

You’re being incoherent.

Even 500 years in earth’s historical time would be blindingly fast, but it would be so slow as to make the whole thing not even a concern for the human race.

Huge inconsistencies, to say the least

No, not really. Just a layperson scrambling to support his ideology over facts.

[tomndebb]

@EdwinAmi

Brah, you’re just fucking lying. If you really think this, you’re lying to yourself, and too easily believing stupid statistical games. For example, what defines “expert”?

It is against the the rules of the Great Debates forum to make this sort of accusation.

Do not do it again.

[ /Moderating ]

[Lobohan]

@EdwinAmi

Brah, you’re just fucking lying. If you really think this, you’re lying to yourself, and too easily believing stupid statistical games. For example, what defines “expert”?

How about, people who actually do climate science?

Scientific consensus on climate change