You and GIGObuster and I, in a separate conversation in that thread, were going back and forth about some stuff, which was all well and good.
I also responded to something Ají de Gallina said. It was clearly a response to her; I quoted her; there’s no confusion about that.
You are of course welcome to respond to what I said to Ají; we don’t have closed conversations around here, except in PM.
What you are NOT welcome to do is to find my remarks to her to be wanting or insufficient in any regard because they aren’t sufficient by the standards of the other conversation going on in that thread, the one you and GIGO and I were having.
As you note, I said to Ají, “AGW says the overall temperature of the Earth will increase over time if we keep pumping CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.”
You haverepeatedlycomplainedthat I have not said how much the increase would be, in what span of time. Neither Ají nor I felt it was necessary to include anything about how much the temperature would increase in what period of time. “Will increase over time” sufficed for that conversation. You have not joined that conversation in any meaningful way, to discuss my statement within its context. You’re welcome to. You’re just not welcome to judge what I’m saying by some other context.
If I had made that statement in the back-and-forth with you and GIGO, you might have had a valid complaint. I didn’t, and you don’t. So kindly shut the fuck up.
You made a statement so broad that I found it meaningless. You were replying to Aji’s point that it’s “possible that all four options are true, it also means that observation is useless per se to determine while your hypothesis is true.” If it helps you, note that your observation is, as Aji said, useless per se to determine while your hypothesis is true.
Aji used the phrase in post #91; you copy-and-pasted it in #92. I believe your comment about an increase “over time” is so broad as to make “observation useless per se”.
Not really, no. Let’s say the temperature declines every year for the next decade – indeed, for the next three decades – and then climbs back up, above and beyond where it is now: it decreased “over time,” and also increased “over time.” Let’s say instead that it increases every year for the next decade (increasing “over time”) before declining every year for, oh, say, the rest of the century (“over time”).
Again, what does “over time” mean? If decades go by without significant change – however you define “significant” – then statement #2 is true (for certain values of “over time”) and your original statement hasn’t yet been proven false (for a larger value of “over time”). And if it increases “over time,” but not significantly, then both statements are simply true.
Yet another reason cannibals don’t eat clowns. Not only do they taste funny, but also they leave you at a social disadvantage.
I marvel that people keep engaging ToWP on climate change. You’d have similar luck trying to discuss political nuances with Rush (though Rush does have more than one slogan to cling to). Though then again, it’s a useful service to the community at large to provide a semblance of grown-up discussion in places where the ‘falsefiability!’ nonsense shows up (particularly to distinguish it from the vast majority of areas where it’s relevant).
RTF, GIGO, my hat’s off to you.
Look at the entire statement: “AGW says the overall temperature of the Earth will increase over time if we keep pumping CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.” It clearly specifies the time frame over which the statement is to be effective: “[as long as] we keep pumping CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.”
So if we keep pumping them into the atmosphere, and the overall temperature of the Earth decreases next year – what, can one year prove him wrong? Or is that not what he meant by “over time”? If we keep pumping, and the overall temperature of the Earth doesn’t increase for ten or fifteen years – can we yet say he’s wrong, or can he keep replying “that’s still not what I meant by ‘over time,’ bozo-breath; why assume I had so short a timetable in mind?”
The reality is that you are incapable of following arguments that do not deal with it and this is why you are here.
And you are incapable of realizing that falsification is part of what scientists already do in spades on this subject and many times the falsifications already attempted in the past are already clearly understood, only a denier (and many times you have demonstrated to swallow their stupid points hook line and sinker) or a follower of ad nauseam or a moron would continue to make himself like Allan Davis from QI (minus the acting part) and be the butt monkey of many posters because of your misuse of falsification by showing to others the idiocy of how you employ it.
I’ve mentioned – in the thread in question, even – that I realize full well that fine results followed from useful “falsifications already attempted in the past”. I merely ask that the same precision be used going forward; claims about the future should employ that same crucial element of falsifiability instead of being over-broad to the point of uselessness.
The strength of current conclusions hinges on past falsifications; why, then, shouldn’t statements about the future be built along the same lines? You’ve personally proven capable of making precisely those sorts of falsifiable predictions about the future; what’s the harm in asking others to do likewise?
And once again, you are requesting others to just watch paint dry.
AD NAUSEAM. Your only objective then is to shut up discussions while you continue to defend deniers (and this is because by your own words you agree that there is already a problem, however this good thing from your part appears for practical reasons to be just a smoke screen for a denier)
And falsification was not the point nor the reason that allow us to then declare that a certifiable denier like brazil was once again pushing denier garbage.
I’m not following you. My objective is to respond to overly-broad claims – we’ll see a rise “over time,” for example – by requesting clarification. If a “denier” wants to point out that “over time” is too broad to mean much of anything, I suppose I’d agree with him.
Make the prediction falsifiable and brazil84 would be wrong. Make it unfalsifiable and brazil84 is right. Refusing to so engage him and his is – what’s that old quote about doing the right thing for the wrong reason? Even if you’re right about AGW, you should make your case the right way: not with the like of RTFirefly’s overly-broad claim – which could never be proven incorrect – but with the like of your own sufficiently specific predictions.
TOWP is the best username acronym around. I pronounce it “Toe-puh”.
As for the thread, do you, TOWP, think that you’re smarter than the large majority of climate scientists? Do you think that you spotted something as an untrained layperson that thousands of scientists working in the field from dozens of different organizations missed?
Isn’t it likely that you’re not educated enough to understand the specifics and can’t make a meaningful critique?
And, again, it’s fine with me that you keep supplying falsifiable predictions after I do so; it’s a small price for me to pay, and I can but hope that RTFirefly will respond likewise.
I’m not sure I follow you. What do you think I’ve spotted that the climate scientists haven’t? I merely ask that, if they – or laymen – offer a prediction that seems vague to the point of being unfalsifiable, they should spell out exactly what would falsify it. I’m not saying they’re incapable of doing so; I’ve been impressed (won over, even) by GIGO’s ability to do so; I merely note whenever they don’t bother to so specify, for whatever reason.
They may well already be thinking of a perfectly falsifiable prediction while expressing it in unfalsifiable terms; if that’s the case, I merely ask that the implicit be made explicit.
That lack of education from TOWP **Lobohan **is what scientists like Feynman described as 10:20:30 points, TOWP also does not get that, indeed scientists already made very general predictions on what ice would do in a warming world and the few exceptions were or are explained properly. Regardless of what ad nauseum tactic he uses it is just to to stall the clear conclusion that what deniers are saying -that scientists are a bunch of people that have a contradictory garbage hypothesis on what things like ice will do in a warming world- is garbage itself and TOWP did defend it. http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm
That’s simply not true. You’re copy-and-pasting a quote of mine from a post that, as it happens, says the exact opposite: that they (and laymen) may well have a perfectly falsifiable concept in mind when expressing it in unfalsifiable terms.
I’m not quite sure what you mean by “goofing” – or why you’re focusing on “scientists”. This thread was started by a layman, who’d used a phrase that’s overly-broad to the point of uselessness; he may well have a falsifiable concept in mind, which is why I asked him to specify it. I’d ask the same of any other layman who employed such a term, or any scientist who supplied such a term, precisely because I think they’re perfectly capable of supplying one.
No, a 10:20:30 point would involve me supplying possible specific answers. I’m asking folks – be they laymen or scientists – who supply answers to clarify their own answers.
That’s odd. I’ve already said – right here in this thread – that I realize full well that fine results followed from useful “falsifications already attempted in the past”. I merely ask that the same precision be used going forward; claims about the future should employ that same crucial element of falsifiability instead of being over-broad to the point of uselessness. Here’s the quote, if it helps you: