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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Meh, redundancy again.
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 “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.
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.
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.
As a side note, this is a huge red flag. Surely some risks would be improved by global warming.
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.
Then why did you say “neither of us can really use [that] as ammunition against deniers”?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
And please drop your toy falsification tool,
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2010/04/falsifying_theories.php
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.
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.