# Why Would Insurers Tell Untruths About Global Warming? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 6, 2012, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-insurers-tell-untruths-about-global-warming/614928 "2012-03-06T13:45:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**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:** [March 8, 2012, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-insurers-tell-untruths-about-global-warming/614928/61 "2012-03-08T17:04:58Z")
Now that is really a big chip… 🙂 Anyhow, it is just avoiding dealing with the issue at hand, in this case the misrepresentation of what scientists are saying regarding natural weather phenomena and how global warming is affecting them. ---
**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:** [March 8, 2012, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-insurers-tell-untruths-about-global-warming/614928/62 "2012-03-08T17:15:13Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Now that is really a big chip.. 🙂 > > Anyhow, it is just avoiding dealing with the issue at hand, in this case the misrepresentation of what scientists are saying regarding natural weather phenomena and how global warming is affecting them. But what’s the misrepresentation, exactly? In the quote you took issue with, **brazil84** said – accurately – that CAGW predicts more snow and ice, except when it predicts less snow and ice. He added – accurately – that CAGW predicts warming, except when it predicts cooling. He added – accurately – that a hypothesis which doesn’t make specific predictions is not a hypothesis at all. He didn’t go on to state that your hypothesis in fact makes one specific prediction, but I’m not sure he’d ever seen the tenth-of-a-degree-from’07-to-'17 prediction before this very thread; I doubt I would’ve ever seen it, if not for discussing it with you; I’ve certainly never seen it mentioned on television, or in the newspapers, amidst the constant drumbeat of folks thereabouts explaining that, _no, this latest instance of cold weather of course doesn’t disprove global warming,_ and I doubt **brazil84** ’s experience is any different. Only the general term gets broad exposure; where would he have seen folks making the specific prediction? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-insurers-tell-untruths-about-global-warming/614928/63 "2012-03-08T17:25:09Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > But what’s the misrepresentation, exactly? In the quote you took issue with, **brazil84** said – accurately – that CAGW predicts more snow and ice, except when it predicts less snow and ice. He added – accurately – that CAGW predicts warming, except when it predicts cooling. He added – accurately – that a hypothesis which doesn’t make specific predictions is not a hypothesis at all. Correct me if I’m wrong, but predicting that the Arctic icecap and Northern Hemisphere glaciers will diminish is specific, and not contradicted by the prediction that snowfalls will be heavier in those areas that are still cold enough for it to snow, as part of the more general prediction that an increasing proportion of overall precipitation will come as part of heavier precipitation events. I guess that’s “predict[ing] more snow and ice, except when [predicting] less snow and ice,” but it’s also total bullshit that it’s some “either way, we can say we were right” sort of prediction. ---
**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:** [March 8, 2012, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-insurers-tell-untruths-about-global-warming/614928/64 "2012-03-08T17:26:06Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > But what’s the misrepresentation, exactly? In the quote you took issue with, **brazil84** said – accurately – that CAGW predicts more snow and ice, except when it predicts less snow and ice. He added – accurately – that CAGW predicts warming, except when it predicts cooling. He added – accurately – that a hypothesis which doesn’t make specific predictions is not a hypothesis at all. In the quoted article there is no cooling being predicted, and that is just for starters, he is indeed ignoring the local conditions and seasons to make the scientists appear as not having a good hypothesis. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > He didn’t go on to state that your hypothesis in fact makes one specific prediction, but I’m not sure he’d ever seen the tenth-of-a-degree-from’07-to-'17 prediction before this very thread; I doubt I would’ve ever seen it, if not for discussing it with you; I’ve certainly never seen it mentioned on television, or in the newspapers, amidst the constant drumbeat of folks thereabouts explaining that, _no, this latest instance of cold weather of course doesn’t disprove global warming,_ and I doubt **brazil84** ’s experience is any different. Only the general term gets broad exposure; where would he have seen folks making the specific prediction? Once again it is clear, except by some high flying actors, 🙂 the intention is to convince others that scientists are being contradictory, they are not. ---
**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:** [March 8, 2012, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-insurers-tell-untruths-about-global-warming/614928/65 "2012-03-08T17:45:37Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > In the quoted article there is no cooling being predicted, and that is just for starters His comment remains accurate, though, if cooling is 100% consistent with the predictions. What would be your response if this year is cooler than last one, as the last one was cooler than the prior one, prompting someone to loudly claim the predictions have thereby been proven false? Surely you’d disagree. Surely you’d patiently explain that such cooling in no way disproves – or even counts against – what you’ve been saying. Surely you’d be correct. > [@](#): > > Once again it is clear, except by some high flying actors, 🙂 the intention is to convince others that scientists are being contradictory, they are not. I’m not trying to convince anyone that the scientists are being contradictory, and I don’t see that **brazil84** is either. You’re setting yourself against a straw man. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-insurers-tell-untruths-about-global-warming/614928/66 "2012-03-08T17:48:04Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > My position is that if we want to know what insurers believe, we need to see what they are willing to give discounts for. Any insurance company can jack up rates (or ask for a rate increase from regulators) and blame it on global warming. But if they really believe in global warming, they will offer discounts for insuring risks which can be expected to go down as a result of CAGW. Sure they could - but unless the insurance companies are in collusion, a company could undercut this one on price while still expecting to make a profit based on the risks involved. So they are likely to be successful and profitable. I mentioned earthquake insurance. I’ve seen no evidence that the insurance companies are trying to rip anyone off based on their high premium very high deductible policies. But the prices are so high that people have mostly chosen to self-insure. If there are aspect of GW (the CA part is not significant in this discussion) that would reduce risk that would be factored in, but I can’t think of any at the moment. ---
**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:** [March 8, 2012, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-insurers-tell-untruths-about-global-warming/614928/67 "2012-03-08T17:50:50Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > His comment remains accurate, though, if cooling is 100% consistent with the predictions. What would be your response if this year is cooler than last one, as the last one was cooler than the prior one, prompting someone to loudly claim the predictions have thereby been proven false? > > Surely you’d disagree. Surely you’d patiently explain that such cooling in no way disproves – or even counts against – what you’ve been saying. Surely you’d be correct. Meh, redundancy again. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I’m not trying to convince anyone that the scientists are being contradictory, and I don’t see that **brazil84** is either. You’re setting yourself against a straw man. I already said that, the straw man is from brazil84 For some reason you think you are assuming I’m the one doing it, far from it, deniers are doing it. ---
**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:** [March 8, 2012, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-insurers-tell-untruths-about-global-warming/614928/68 "2012-03-08T18:01:14Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Meh, redundancy again. You claim “the intention is to convince others that scientists are being contradictory”. That’s certainly not my intent, and I don’t see that it’s **brazil84** ’s intent. > [@](#): > > I already said that, the straw man is from brazil84 > > For some reason you think you are assuming I’m the one doing it, far from it, deniers are doing it. You claim that someone in this thread has the intention to convince others that scientists are being contradictory; if no one in this thread has that intention, you’re making a straw-man argument. If you think “deniers” are making straw-man arguments, I suggest extrapolating from my experience by figuring they may be in the situation I used to be in: perhaps they’ve only ever heard unfalsifiable claims about global warming, and so mention that they’ve only ever heard unfalsifiable claims about global warming. ---
**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:** [March 8, 2012, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-insurers-tell-untruths-about-global-warming/614928/69 "2012-03-08T18:12:50Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > You claim “the intention is to convince others that scientists are being contradictory”. That’s certainly not my intent, and I don’t see that it’s **brazil84** ’s intent. > > You claim that someone in this thread has the intention to convince others that scientists are being contradictory; if no one in this thread has that intention, you’re making a straw-man argument. If you think “deniers” are making straw-man arguments, I suggest extrapolating from my experience by figuring they may be in the situation I used to be in: perhaps they’ve only ever heard unfalsifiable claims about global warming, and so mention that they’ve only ever heard unfalsifiable claims about global warming. Already \*\*RTFirefly \*\*noticed, you are missing a lot of what deniers use for their flawed rhetoric. ---
**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:** [March 8, 2012, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-insurers-tell-untruths-about-global-warming/614928/70 "2012-03-08T18:39:01Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Already \*\*RTFirefly \*\*noticed, you are missing a lot of what deniers use for their flawed rhetoric. And as **RTFirefly** noted, _“I guess that’s ‘predict[ing] more snow and ice, except when [predicting] less snow and ice,’”_ which neither of us can really use as ammunition against deniers. He went on to add that it’s _“total bullshit that it’s some ‘either way, we can say we were right’ sort of prediction”_ – but it has nothing to do with the tenth-of-a-degree IPCC prediction, which will in fact be proven right or wrong regardless of whether the icecap and glaciers diminish. If they don’t diminish, but we get a tenth-of-a-degree change, your prediction will prove true. If they diminish, and we get that change, your prediction will also prove true. If they don’t diminish, and we get no tenth-of-a-degree change, your prediction will prove false. If they diminish, and we don’t get that change, your prediction will also prove false; **one has nothing to do with the other;** you and the IPCC can, in the former case, say you were right either way, regardless of the part that’s irrelevant to your prediction. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-insurers-tell-untruths-about-global-warming/614928/71 "2012-03-08T22:49:40Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Sure they could - but unless the insurance companies are in collusion, a company could undercut this one on price while still expecting to make a profit based on the risks involved. I would say that lobbying regulators for a rate increase is a form of collusion. Admittedly, in a very competitive market, increasing rates based on global warming would be an indication that the insurance company really did believe in CAGW. But I am skeptical that insurance markets are competitive enough to draw such a conclusion. > [@](#): > > If there are aspect of GW (the CA part is not significant in this discussion) that would reduce risk that would be factored in, but I can’t think of any at the moment. As a side note, this is a huge red flag. Surely some risks would be improved by global warming. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2012, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-insurers-tell-untruths-about-global-warming/614928/72 "2012-03-09T15:12:19Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > And as **RTFirefly** noted, _“I guess that’s ‘predict[ing] more snow and ice, except when [predicting] less snow and ice,’”_ which neither of us can really use as ammunition against deniers. He went on to add that it’s _“total bullshit that it’s some ‘either way, we can say we were right’ sort of prediction”_ – but it has nothing to do with the tenth-of-a-degree IPCC prediction, which will in fact be proven right or wrong regardless of whether the icecap and glaciers diminish. Can’t argue with you there. In fact, I wasn’t. You said **two** things, remember: > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > But what’s the misrepresentation, exactly? In the quote you took issue with, **brazil84** said – accurately – that **[1]** CAGW predicts more snow and ice, except when it predicts less snow and ice. He added – accurately – that **[2]** CAGW predicts warming, except when it predicts cooling. [Bolded, bracketed numbers mine; the rest is as in your original.] I took issue with [1]. I did not address [2]. These were separate and distinct claims. The fact that I didn’t address [2] doesn’t say anything, one way or the other, about the validity of my criticism of [1]. ---
**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:** [March 9, 2012, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-insurers-tell-untruths-about-global-warming/614928/73 "2012-03-09T15:56:23Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Can’t argue with you there. In fact, I wasn’t. > > You said **two** things, remember: > [Bolded, bracketed numbers mine; the rest is as in your original.] > > I took issue with [1]. I did not address [2]. These were separate and distinct claims. The fact that I didn’t address [2] doesn’t say anything, one way or the other, about the validity of my criticism of [1]. Right. You didn’t address [2], so there’s no criticism on that one for me to object to. You did address [1], in a manner I also took no objection to. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2012, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-insurers-tell-untruths-about-global-warming/614928/74 "2012-03-09T16:05:11Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Right. You didn’t address [2], so there’s no criticism on that one for me to object to. You did address [1], in a manner I also took no objection to. Then why did you say “neither of us can really use [that] as ammunition against deniers”? ---
**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:** [March 9, 2012, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-insurers-tell-untruths-about-global-warming/614928/75 "2012-03-09T16:12:44Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Right. You didn’t address [2], so there’s no criticism on that one for me to object to. You did address [1], in a manner I also took no objection to. And so we get to see once again the tactic of finding 100 ways to have my cake and eat it too. I think you protest too much as my last reply was to agree with **RTFirefly**. Bottom line regarding the ice issue, only in very specific regions global warming is increasing the ice volume of glaciers, overall ice volume is dropping all over the world. The AGW theory explains properly even those exceptions, not mentioning that that is what the scientists are actually reporting after so many discussions demonstrates an effort to seed doubts with no real justification. ---
**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:** [March 9, 2012, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-insurers-tell-untruths-about-global-warming/614928/76 "2012-03-09T16:27:18Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Then why did you say “neither of us can really use [that] as ammunition against deniers”? I don’t see it as objectionable, and I also don’t see it as ammunition against deniers. But I could be persuaded to change my mind, as per the following: [QUOTE=GIGObuster] Bottom line regarding the ice issue, only in very specific regions global warming is increasing the ice volume of glaciers, overall ice volume is dropping all over the world [/QUOTE] Again, though, as I understand it your prediction and the IPCC’s stands or falls regardless of the ice volume, right? If that tenth-of-a-degree change comes to pass, no one can loudly crow that You Were Proven Wrong even if the ice volume increases – and if that tenth-of-a-degree change _ **doesn’t** _ come to pass, they can crow that You Were Proven Wrong even if the ice volume decreases. Do I have that right? Or is there some other falsifiable prediction in the mix? ---
**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:** [March 9, 2012, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-insurers-tell-untruths-about-global-warming/614928/77 "2012-03-09T16:35:47Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I don’t see it as objectionable, and I also don’t see it as ammunition against deniers. > > But I could be persuaded to change my mind, as per the following: > > Again, though, as I understand it your prediction and the IPCC’s stands or falls regardless of the ice volume, right? If that tenth-of-a-degree change comes to pass, no one can loudly crow that You Were Proven Wrong even if the ice volume increases – and if that tenth-of-a-degree change _ **doesn’t** _ come to pass, they can crow that You Were Proven Wrong even if the ice volume decreases. > > Do I have that right? Or is there some other falsifiable prediction in the mix? What you have there is an attempt to discuss another item as to avoid dealing with the Ice issue at hand that shows clearly that what brasil said was garbage. What you are missing is the already pointed out item that AGW is based on multiple lines of evidence, Ice loss is one of them, and it is one of the few items were the data shows clearly that the problem is actually worse than the most conservative estimates had. ---
**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:** [March 9, 2012, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-insurers-tell-untruths-about-global-warming/614928/78 "2012-03-09T16:43:38Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > What you have there is an attempt to discuss another item as to avoid dealing with the Ice issue at hand that shows clearly that what brasil said was garbage. I’m trying to deal with it directly. I’m saying that, to the best of my knowledge, brazil84 won’t be able to crow that You Were Proven Wrong if the ice volume increases, because I haven’t seen you make a falsifiable prediction about that issue and it would be grossly unfair of him to hold such an event against you. I’m therefore asking you whether you’ll be proven wrong if _ **either** _ the tenth-of-a-degree change fails to show up or the ice volume increases. If you’d like to so double the number of circumstances that would prove you wrong, I’m all ears. But I haven’t yet heard that. To me, you – and the IPCC – are like someone who predicts the winner of the next Super Bowl and is willing to bet accordingly, but who shouldn’t be made to pay up on the outcome of the initial coin flip or on a side bet about which team will score first or anything else. As far as I know, you’ve pegged falsifiability to a single factor. ---
**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:** [March 9, 2012, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-insurers-tell-untruths-about-global-warming/614928/79 "2012-03-09T16:56:21Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I’m trying to deal with it directly. I’m saying that, to the best of my knowledge, brazil84 won’t be able to crow that You Were Proven Wrong if the ice volume increases, because I haven’t seen you make a falsifiable prediction about that issue and it would be grossly unfair of him to hold such an event against you. We are not dealing with predictions here, but facts: > **[How does Arctic sea ice loss compare to Antarctic sea ice gain?](https://skepticalscience.com/arctic-antarctic-sea-ice.htm)** > > The Arctic trend is in fact more than three times faster than the Antarctic one. The net result is a statistically significant global decrease of more than a million km\2\. > [@](#): > > What the science says… > > Arctic sea ice loss is three times greater than Antarctic sea ice gain. > **[Are glaciers growing or retreating?](https://skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing-intermediate.htm)** > > \While there are isolated cases of growing glaciers, the overwhelming trend in glaciers worldwide is retreat. In fact, the global melt rate has been accelerating since the mid-1970s.\ > [@](#): > > What the science says… > > While there are isolated cases of growing glaciers, the overwhelming trend in glaciers worldwide is retreat. In fact, the global melt rate has been accelerating since the mid-1970s > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I’m therefore asking you whether you’ll be proven wrong if _ **either** _ the tenth-of-a-degree change fails to show up or the ice volume increases. If you’d like to so double the number of circumstances that would prove you wrong, I’m all ears. That is not the subject, and you are only pressing that to avoid dealing with the fact that you are supporting a denier point regarding ice loss. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > But I haven’t yet heard that. To me, you – and the IPCC – are like someone who predicts the winner of the next Super Bowl and is willing to bet accordingly, but who shouldn’t be made to pay up on the outcome of the initial coin flip or on a side bet about which team will score first or anything else. As far as I know, you’ve pegged falsifiability to a single factor. And please drop your toy falsification tool, [http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2010/04/falsifying\_theories.php](http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2010/04/falsifying_theories.php) > [@](#): > > Climate denialists are fond of arguments regarding the falsifying of hypotheses. There are two main thrusts they use here, (ironically enough mutually exclusive thrusts\*\*). The first is that global warming is an “unfalsifiable” theory and therefore not a true scientific construct. I don’t recall any good example essays making this point to link to (maybe someone can post a link in the comments?), but I believe the idea comes mostly from the all too common conflation of the actual science and the mainstream reporting of the science. They say that the IPCC claims that extreme warmth and extreme cold, floods and droughts, more storms and fewer storms, and shrinking ice and growing ice are all the result of anthropogenic global warming and therefore no matter what happens, the theory is confirmed. > > Of course, this is not true and illustrates a variety of misconceptions. > > Extreme warmth is certainly on the agenda, but I don’t believe extreme cold is. This canard is most likely derived from the very unlikely hypothetical collapse of the Gulf Stream current which brings much milder winters to northwestern Europe than they would otherwise have. Aside from sensational newspaper articles, no one talks about this as coming to pass in the foreseeable short term (2100ish) future. > > Both floods and droughts are predicted, but this is not the contradiction denialists would have us believe. On the one hand, less frequent but more intense rainfall can mean cycles of floods and droughts in the same regions, and on the other hand regional responses to global warming vary. Here is an IPCC summary paragraph: > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > The response of the hydrological cycle is controlled in part by fundamental consequences of warmer temperatures and the increase in water vapour in the atmosphere (Chapter 3). Water is transported horizontally by the atmosphere from regions of moisture divergence (particularly in the subtropics) to regions of convergence. Even if the circulation does not change, these transports will increase due to the increase in water vapour. The consequences of this increased moisture transport can be seen in the global response of precipitation, described in Chapter 10, where, on average, precipitation increases in the inter-tropical convergence zones, decreases in the subtropics, and increases in subpolar and polar regions. Over North America and Europe, the pattern of subpolar moistening and subtropical drying dominates the 21st-century projections. > > > > ``` > [@](#): > > The “more storms and fewer storms” bit could come from the still controversial projections of tropical cyclone behaviour. I say controversial, but when it comes to projections, the best word would be uncertain. The controversy is really around the existence of an already observable effect on storms, I don’t think there is much of a scientific case for warming oceans resulting in less severe storms. The actual projection at the moment is for stronger tropical cyclones, but also fewer tropical cyclones. Clearly this is a distinction designed to confuse the already sorry state of science journalism around global warming issues. > > Ice sheet and glacier response to a warming climate is another area where real life just is not as simple as we might like and yes actually, ice sheets and glaciers can grow in response to a warming climate. This is simply because the the formula for growing land ice is snow accumulation minus ice loss and warmer temperatures in a cold climate can result in more snowfall. As in the case of the interior of the Greenland Ice Sheet, the increased snowfall outpaces the melting and ablation so the interior of Greenland is gaining mass (even as it loses mass overall due to dramatically increased melting and faster calving at the edges.) Another datapoint that is spun on its head is the marginally growing sea ice in the antarctic. The fact is that modeling does not lead us to expect any significant changes in antarctic sea ice for a while yet. So ~2% growth over the last few decades does not contradict climate change theory, but nor does it confirm it and I challenge readers to find a credible source making any such claim. ---
**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:** [March 9, 2012, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-insurers-tell-untruths-about-global-warming/614928/80 "2012-03-09T17:21:18Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > We are not dealing with predictions here, but facts > [@](#): > > That is not the subject, and you are only pressing that to avoid dealing with the fact that you are supporting a denier point regarding ice loss. Your first point there is my answer to your second point: if you’re not making any predictions about ice loss, then I find no fault in brazil84 noting that either an increase or a decrease in ice would be consistent with your predictions. If the ice volume _ **increases,** _ and someone crows that you were proven wrong, I’d gladly be the _ **first** _ to defend you – by copy-and-pasting that very sentence: _“We are not dealing with predictions here,”_ you said, when explicitly refusing to make predictions about ice loss. Your tenth-of-a-degree prediction is entirely falsifiable. Your ice-loss prediction may well also be, if you’d make one – but, as per that first sentence up there, you’re not yet making one. You’re predicting who’ll win the Super Bowl; you’re not yet also predicting the outcome of the coin flip, or which team will score first – but you can add that at will. You can do so right now, if you like; you haven’t done it yet, is all. _“We are not dealing with predictions here,”_ you said, when asked about ice loss. > [@](#): > > And please drop your toy falsification tool, > > [http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidere...g\_theories.php](http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidere...g_theories.php) > > > [@](#): > > > > Climate denialists are fond of arguments regarding the falsifying of hypotheses. There are two main thrusts they use here, (ironically enough mutually exclusive thrusts\*\*). The first is that global warming is an “unfalsifiable” theory and therefore not a true scientific construct. I don’t claim it’s “an ‘unfalsifiable’ theory and therefore not a true scientific construct.” I’ve repeatedly pointed out, in this very thread, that your theory is entirely falsifiable. (You don’t go on to quote the second ‘main thrust’, but it doesn’t apply here either.) I’m at a loss as to why you copy-and-pasted that at all. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-insurers-tell-untruths-about-global-warming/614928.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-insurers-tell-untruths-about-global-warming/614928.md?page=5)