The cites have been provided many times already, what you demonstrate to all is an inability to learn to use even tools like from sites like skeptical science.
Just the same as scientists did before, once again your idiotic implication is that the falsifications done before can not be used again. And for the matter at hand, a useless test to perform again, drop your toy falsification tool and just agree that what the denier said can not be supported by the facts, scientists do have a good theory and it is not contradictory nor garbage.
Continuing to discuss paint dry is just Ad nauseam 10:20:30 arguments, and after having pointed in the past resources like Skeptical Science, idiotic arguments and you remain proud of using those denialist tactics.
So: you’re counting something Aji said before I made that comment as something she said about that comment.
Hey, that’s about as honest as anything else you’ve said in this discussion.
Seems like I’ve been quoting George Carlin a lot lately. But he seems to be the appropriate response, so here goes:
For the most part, I’ve left the climate change threads to others around here who know the details far better than I do. So I hadn’t encountered TOWP often enough to remember him, if at all.
Now I have. I won’t be wasting my time on him again.
No, I’m saying you replied to Aji’s comment – about a situation where observation is useless per se, since the statement is applicable to far too many options – with a statement that’s likewise applicable to far too many options and therefore makes observation equally useless. You responded to Aji’s accurate complaint with more of the same; I therefore wish to apply Aji’s complaint about a significantly similar claim to the identically unhelpful response it provoked.
As well you should. GIGO, for example, is perfectly capable of giving specific and falsifiable predictions about temperature increase; you apparently limit yourself to a too-vague claim about how it’ll happen “over time,” which means you’re not contributing anything useful. You are, to borrow a phrase from Aji, setting up a situation where “observation is useless per se”. GIGO is better than that; you’re apparently not.
Refrain from unfalsifiable claims and I doubt you’ll need to bother.
On the contrary, I merely want explicit mention of what hypothetical evidence would falsify the claim; it makes no difference to me whether you’re using the same one again or coming up with a new one.
As soon as you stop performing tests, it stops being falsifiable science – but since you’re perfectly willing to offer falsifiable predictions, that’s not the case in your case; you apparently don’t see it as useless. The question is, why doesn’t RTFirefly take one all-important step further, the way you do?
An idiotic thing to say, the evidence reports that scientists have already tested this, and deniers are wrong on saying that scientists just have a garbage theory.
There is no need to resort to toy falsification tools to realize that. Your only effort then is reduced to just to press an academic point ad nauseam.
I press the point until I get an answer. I therefore only repeat it “ad nauseam” if – for one reason or another – the person who made the general statement refuses, each time, to supply specifics when asked; I’m content as soon as they follow your example. Why, then, do you suppose there’s so much reticence?
There was one, and only one, day that TOWP was paying attention in science class. Unfortunately for us all, it was the day that the teacher briefly introduced the concept of falsification.
Again, no one would have ever seen my love of the stuff if folks hereabouts made falsifiable predictions in the first place – sure as I wouldn’t seem especially keen on it if I got an answer upon asking, y’know, once. Instead, it seems precious few others were paying attention that day; instead of taking falsification as the crucial starting point, too many are treating it as an unimportant afterthought.
Thank you for admitting that to all, you are a dunce for not even willing to see how your way of approaching this is stupid as you end up not convincing anyone that counts. (IIRC RTFirefly has a background in statistics and economics, going forward it does mean that indeed it is good to notice that people like him do get it and are able to identify denier crap arguments on this subject)
I’m not sure why you think RTFirefly “gets it”; until and unless he spells out what he means by “over time,” he may well think the prediction can be disproved if a single year passes without an increase – or if we get ten years without an increase, or fifteen years without an increase. In which case he’d be dead wrong, right?
He doesn’t specify what he means by “over time,” and you simply assume he gets it. I’m not comfortable making that assumption; I’d rather ask him.
I’m not the one saying one year, or ten years, or fifteen years, would count as “over time”. I’m saying that RTFirefly isn’t spelling out what would count as “over time”. That’s, like, the opposite of a 10:20:30; I’m not offering a specific answer, I’m merely asking for his.
I’m not out to undo it; as I said, GIGO – after being asked – supplied a perfectly falsifiable prediction about the future, not to torpedo the claim in question but to strengthen it by clarifying it. I thank him for it, and remain amazed that more folks don’t follow his example.
As the evidence and past and current tests show, a very unlikely outcome.
Yours is just a request to watch paint dry, and once again the reason is that you already said we have to do something about it, you are just being redundant and everyone can notice that in this case you continue to avoid acknowledging that scientists do have a good theory and the exceptions regarding snow and ice gains were already explained properly.
Like a petulant child, we know **that **already.
You need to go to more appropriate forums to waste your time.
Er, yes. And because I already agree about the moot part, what’s left for me but to ask questions about the remaining part?
I’ve said it in this thread, and then copy-and-pasted myself saying it in this thread. Shall I do so a third time?
You unleash your vitriol on me for asking him to clarify, and save none for the guy who clouds the issue by throwing around too-vague terms. If not for people like him, people like me couldn’t even ask the questions that strike you as so irritating; I’d never get the chance, if he simply responded the way you have.
It’s a bit late for that. If you wanted to get involved in the discussion Aji and I were having, the place to do it was the original thread. You didn’t get involved in that discussion. You just wanted to jerk one statement of mine out of that discussion, and get all pissed at me because, IYHO, it wasn’t suitable for your discussion.
Don’t bother to try to back-date the claim that you were really participating in or commenting on that discussion somehow.
Which is another reason why I limited myself to saying what I said, and not saying anything beyond: I wanted to restrict my assertions to things I could confidently speak to.
We consider that a Good Thing around here. So I wasn’t going to let myself get baited into making assertions that I had no foundation for making.
So now you say I should refrain from saying the things you’re mad at me for not saying. I’m good with that. Also amused as hell.
Statistics, yes. But regrettably, I have only a decent layman’s grasp of economics. I need more lifetimes to master all the things I’d like to be good at. (Don’t we all?)
And you already announced that “I won’t be wasting my time on him again.” I commend you on, uh, something.
If all you can confidently speak to is a claim that the world will get warmer “over time,” then I’m delighted to have you make that point explicit; I wouldn’t want anyone to get the idea that you know more than you do.
No, see, it’s that I’m happy either way. When someone like you makes a too-vague claim, I’m equally delighted whether they (a) go on to supply specifics upon request or (b) admit they’re unable to supply specifics, and can only “confidently speak to” glittering generalities.
I believe my exact words were “If it helps you, note that your observation is, as Aji said, useless per se to determine while your hypothesis is true.” You’ve now explained why your general statement was so useless, and I thank you for it. Again, while I’d have been entirely pleased if you’d explicitly supplied specifics, I’m just as pleased with your explicit explanation for why you can’t confidently go any further; you could’ve so satisfied me back in the other thread, or earlier in this one, but you got there eventually, and I appreciate it; if you ever feel the urge to fire off an overly-general claim in the future, try to specify your terms or your limitations a little sooner.
I took a claim that was entirely too vague, and used it as an example of a claim that was entirely too vague; do it again and I’ll do my best to do likewise.