It is clear for many, even elucidator, that your use of the falsification tool is a toy when you ignore that your application of it is based on false denialist points to begin with. You are only getting most people to laugh at your use of the tool, but that is fine with me.
In this case it is clear that the facts already show who is pushing the trash here, the future falsification of the ice point is an academic one that most people already know was already used in the past even with the ice issue. Scientists report now that it is really foolish to assign much value to any future falsifications of it, as this item has already passed the falsification test many times before.
I’m not concerned with whether you think it’s “foolish” to assign much value to any future falsifications of it. I’m concerned with whether you assign any value to future falsifications of it. As far as I can tell, you don’t; you’re perfectly willing to make a falsifiable prediction about whether we’ll see a tenth-of-a-degree change in temperature, but you’re not willing to make a falsifiable prediction about ice loss.
If you wish to now offer such a prediction, I’m all ears. If not, I’ll defend you against anyone who claims you’re offering such a prediction.
I genuinely can’t believe you’d apply this yardstick in any other context. I’d act the same way in any other situation; would you? If, say, you order a pizza, and then express your belief that it’ll be delivered in thirty minutes or less – possibly even offering to bet a decent amount of money on the proposition – how would you react if someone else then pointed out that you aren’t making a prediction about whether the driver will be male or female? Or that you aren’t making a prediction about whether they’ll get the toppings wrong? How would you react if I then stepped in to say, no, of course he’s not making such a prediction; he’s only predicting how long it will take to get here, right?
Like if it was not clear, you are inputting false garbage denialists points into your falsification machine.
Should one be surprised on the results you are getting so far?
There is a time to use falsification in science, what is clear here is that you are denying that scientists did so on the ice issue as well, based on what has taken place then they report that it is very unlikely that the ice loss will reverse in the near future, making it an academic point, but do not lose hope, you can still get a job at Sherwin Williams or Velspar.
I’m denying nothing of the sort. I’m asking whether you’d like to make a falsifiable prediction about the future – as you did for a tenth-of-a-degree change, but for some reason aren’t willing to do here – sure as I’d be just as glad to credit you with a second falsifiable prediction as soon as you offer one.
But until and unless you do, I’ll agree with anyone who points out that you aren’t making a falsifiable prediction about ice loss. I’ll likewise agree with anyone who points out that you aren’t making a falsifiable prediction about who’ll win the next Super Bowl, or that you aren’t making a falsifiable prediction about pizza toppings.
Which brings me to note, in passing, that you of course didn’t answer the questions in my latest post: how would you react if you made a prediction about a pizza delivery, and someone else pointed out all the things you’re not offering to bet on, and I naturally chimed in as usual?
I merely note that anyone who points out you aren’t making a falsifiable prediction about ice loss strikes me as no different from someone who points out that you’re not making a falsifiable prediction about the Super Bowl, or about pizza delivery. Of course he’s not, I’d say, in any such case; “he’s only making a falsifiable prediction about a tenth-of-a-degree change in temperature – and while he remains free to add a new prediction about anything else, he isn’t yet choosing to do so.”
If a “denier” wishes to point out that either ice loss or ice gain is consistent with your predictions – well, look, I can’t tell him he’s wrong. I can’t tell him he’s wrong if he says you’re not predicting who’ll win an Oscar next year, either. I can but reply by explaining that, no, he’s making a falsifiable prediction about X – not Y, not Z, just X.
Meh, once again, put down your toy falsification tool, you are not fooling anyone.
On this issue, it is really an irrelevant tool to use as it was already used, brazil is already wrong as usual when ignoring the fact that ice loss was already a predicted item by the scientists in a warming world, they and policy makers have to rely on the best evidence so far to act, anything else is just a delaying tactic.
Naturally you know that I’ve already mentioned any number of recommendations for policy makers to act on right now, as per the best evidence available, so you’re certainly not taking shots at my position with the “delaying tactic” remark at the end there; I’m not even sure why you’d imply otherwise.
But that first part – I’m honestly at a loss for how you’d prefer to have me respond. If, in some other thread, brazil84 (or anyone else) steps in to claim that either an increase or a decrease in ice will be entirely compatible with your predictions, how would you have me react? Should I post that, no, you’re completely wrong; if we stop seeing ice loss, if there’s more ice in years to come, you should then call GIGO out as having been proven wrong, since his falsifiable prediction will in that case be absolutely incorrect; why on earth would you claim otherwise?
I again note, as ever, that you refused to answer the questions I’d put to you earlier; will you surprise me by answering the above one?
If you can not see the year 1958 prediction made before, then nobody can help you. The point stands, this has already been tested, the observed levels of current loss are on pace on what many scientists predicted it was going to happen to the ice in a warming world with no control of emissions.
It’s just a bit vague, is all. As I said, if ice loss stops and even reverses, and someone calls you out as having been proven wrong, and you reply “I never said I predicted that ice loss would continue; this reversal is entirely consistent with my predictions” – well, shucks, you’d sort of have a point; it kinda looks like you’re implying it, if I squint just right, but there’s certainly enough wiggle room for you to rebuke someone trying to hold you to a prediction you never actually made; I can’t point to a post where you spelled it out.
And I don’t understand your reticence on this point: you had no problem signing on for the tenth-of-a-degree prediction, I don’t know why you oddly limit yourself to mentioning that “levels of current loss are on pace on what many scientists predicted” when you could easily go on to say “yeah, if there’s more ice in years to come, I’ll be proven wrong.”
(Or, at that, “no, I’m not making an ice-loss prediction.” I realize why you’re not answering the other questions – but why not name your position, in no time flat?)
Meh, my other previous point from other discussions still stands, it is preferable for people like you to attempt to trounce a poster on the internet, for some reason you still think that would show something, rather than dealing with the predictions already made and tested by the scientists.
As best as I can tell, what you’re saying is that it’s somehow unfair for climate scientists to make multiple claims about global warming, because if any of them are right, then they’ll claim they’re right about everything.
That’s really a pretty stupid notion, so I hope that’s not what you’re saying. But it sure looks like it.
The problem is not multiple claims, the problem is opposite claims that both make it right.
GW will produce hotter summers/winters or colder summer/winters. While the complexity of climate makes it possible that all four options are true, it also means that observation is useless per se to determine while your hypothesis is true.
If 5 straight years of record cold winters is consistent with GW, but also 5 straight years of average winter and also 5 straight years of record hot winters too. Again, all are (can be) consisten with GW but it also means that any result of 5 (or 15 or 50) years is Gw probable.
Can you produce the allegedly contradictory claims in question?
AGW says the overall temperature of the Earth will increase over time if we keep pumping CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Local variations in temperatures aren’t ruled out by this, including extreme local variations in the direction of lower temperature. Just because Cincinnati, say, has five record cold winters in a row, doesn’t mean the planet (schmanet, Janet) as a whole isn’t warming during that time. The string of record cold winters in Cincinnati would neither buttress nor undermine AGW.
If that’s the sort of thing you have in mind, there’s no contradiction there. But if you produce the claims in question, then we can have a more concrete discussion.
Er, no. I’m saying I’m perfectly happy if they’re only making one claim, and perfectly happy if they make two claims, and perfectly happy if they make three or thirteen or thirty claims. I don’t feel there’s anything “unfair” about making multiple claims, and don’t believe I’ve said otherwise; as with the Super Bowl analogy, or the pizza analogy, I have nothing against people who only want to bet on one outcome while remaining silent as to the others – and have nothing against people who want to bet on multiple outcomes.
I merely want the list of falsifiable predictions ahead of time.
If GIGO wants to only stake out a position on whether we’ll see a tenth-of-a-degree change by 2017, that’s fine by me; he’ll either be proven right or wrong. And if he wants to stake out a position on whether we’ll see further ice loss, that’s also fine by me; he’ll be proven right or wrong on that one likewise. What I don’t want is for him to stake out a clear position on the former, hint at his position on the latter, and then either (a) point at future ice loss to prove he was right about both, or (b) claim 100% accuracy if there’s future ice gain, since he never made an explicit prediction to the contrary.
I want as many explicit predictions as folks want to supply.
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
AGW says the overall temperature of the Earth will increase over time if we keep pumping CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
[/QUOTE]
See, that’s kind of what I’m on about: if we get no increase in global temperature for a year, does that disprove it? For ten years? Fifteen? You don’t say how long “over time” is. GIGO has, obligingly, provided a timeline: he predicts a tenth of a degree rise, from 2007 to 2017, and again from 2017 to 2027, which is marvelously specific; I don’t know why he’s now being coy about likewise predicting, or refusing to predict, ice loss.
Once again, it was already tested, what it is clear is that you are attempting to deny or minimize to others the fact that the tests and attempts at falsification were already made and continue to this day, and the evidence shows that it is unlikely for you to get other results than what the scientists are expecting, as you yourself say that we should still do something about it, your requests do amount as requesting for all to watch paint dry.
An interesting academic point but just only that. As we should be doing something to avoid the worst effects of the changes brought by AGW.
Again, it merely amazes me that you don’t go one step further. Why not simply state a falsifiable prediction about ice loss? Why only mention that it’s unlikely we’ll see something other than what scientists expect? Your tenth-of-a-degree prediction isn’t at all vague; why be vague here?
But since we’re already agreed on the latter, and you’re refusing to be explicit about the former, surely it’s the latter that’s moot and the former that should be discussed? Especially since you could lay out an explicit claim – in, what, a dozen words or less? Why keep making post after post after post alluding to but not quite answering the question when you could instead end my requests with one sentence?
As pointed before, there is a method to this, it is to give the clueless opponent more rope to hang up. This is even worse when one notices the places to go for the agreed predictions were already cited before.
Because you are acting innocent and batting your pretty eyes?
Another reason why the post on falsification was cited was to show all that deniers do like to use the falsification tool and in precisely the same way you are using it here, so what we have is a situation of someone claiming that while he quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, etc, that he is something else, many are not falling for that. So I’m not playing this game with someone that is demonstrating that wants to remain ignorant of the fact that deniers misuse falsification to continue to discuss ad nauseam and people like you do not care that in the end they quack and sound like deniers.
Well, yeah. I mean, you’re big on extrapolating future claims from past results; I asked you for a falsifiable prediction about global warming back when, and you supplied one; you then backed away from it to move the goalposts, and I asked for a second prediction, and you supplied one; you then backed away from it to move the goalposts, and I asked for a third prediction, and you supplied one; I keep doing the same thing, and results I like keep following.
So why wouldn’t I keep asking until you again supply a satisfactory comment this time? It worked, repeatedly, for temperature; why wouldn’t it work for ice loss?
That’s absurd. You previously linked to someone claiming that “deniers” use falsification to make one of two ‘main thrust’ arguments: either to claim that it’s not falsifiable (which I don’t claim) or that it’s already been falsified (which I don’t claim). By your own cite, they don’t use it “in precisely the same way” that I do; they do the opposite.
I’ve in fact noted that your current prediction – the one about a tenth-of-a-degree change – is entirely falsifiable and hasn’t yet been falsified; I’m merely asking for a similar prediction about ice loss, or an explicit disclaimer that you’re making no such prediction.
They say truth is always a defense to slander. Why not supply truthful information regardless of what you think of the person requesting it?
Because the evidence so far demonstrates that you are not interesting on learning from it. Once again, it is enough to mention what it was predicted before regarding the expected ice loses caused on a warming world due to human made emissions to report that was brasil said was garbage. No need to reach for unlikely future falsifications, the fact that you are still insisting on them, when that is not the reason why what he said was garbage, points then to just an effort to obfuscate the point that you defended a classic denier garbage point.
I disagree. If you’re willing to make a falsifiable prediction about the future, it should be explicit – to counter brazil84’s claims. If you’re unwilling to make that prediction, it should be noted – to brazil84’s credit. As I haven’t yet heard such a prediction from you, I credit brazil84 with mere accuracy; supply the prediction and I’ll counter his claim not once (by mentioning that you’d made a falsifiable tenth-of-a-degree prediction) but twice (by adding that you’d also made a falsifiable ice-loss prediction).
How so? I’ve only ever taken your third-goalpost prediction entirely seriously; I ‘learned’ it right around when I saw your post about it, and in this very thread countered brazil84’s claim with it by pointing out that your tenth-of-a-degree prediction is entirely falsifiable. Supply another falsifiable prediction and I’ll ‘learnedly’ mention it just as readily.
I’ll defend the point so long as you dismissively say there’s No Need To Reach For Future Falsifications; reach for one and I’ll of course stop defending the point.
Anyone can notice that you are only avoiding one important bit:
“it is enough to mention what it was predicted before regarding the expected ice loses caused on a warming world due to human made emissions to report that was brasil said was garbage.”
And that is ignored because like a good denier, you know that past evidence is like kriptonite to garbage denier points.
