Discussion > The end of the Great Delusion is at hand
As usual, Entropic man, you are misreading, misinterpreting or misunderstanding what has been written. I have NOT said that the temperatures are declining, nor am I saying that they will soon do so; I am merely asking what your response would be, should there be an irrefutable decline in temperatures. Such an event would be in direct contradiction in everything that you appear to believe in, so I do expect that such a situation would be difficult for you to reconcile yourself with. Perhaps you should put things in perspective.
Radical Rodent
Radical rodent
If you can show the future cooling I described without a specific cause such as a large volcano, AGW would be falsified and I would accept it. Until you can show statistically significant cooling without a proximate cause, I will continue to default to AGW.
Entropic man
Good – you accept falsifiability. We are moving forward. All we need do now is wait; I suspect – actually, I dread – that we may not have to wait too long. You fear global warming; I welcome it.
Radical Rodent
Entropic Man. AGW remains unproven. Until you can prove otherwise, it will remain so. Climate Science has had all the money, and still cannot provide proof. I am not sure that Climate Science is going to find new evidence, with substantially reduced funds.
If Climate Science had some actual proof or evidence, it would not have fabricated the fraudulent 97% Consensus, and still be quoting it -see The Guardian for details. Unless you are saying that The Guardian does not reflect Climate Science's thinking.
It was my understanding of science that a new theory had to be proved, with evidence. Climate Science has been propelled without evidence, and none has been forthcoming. You are simply blathering on and on, and throwing your own credibility down the plughole, by trying to redefine responsibility for proof.
How many years has Climate Science lurched from scandal to scandal without proof, and possibly without any significant warming? I am not the only one to have noticed no warming at all, just less cooling in winter.
AGW has never been proved, therefore it does not need to be disproved.
golf charlie
Dang, GC! That answer is so much better than mine!
Radical Rodent
In her conclusions, Judith Curry puts it fairly bluntly.
https://judithcurry.com/2016/12/15/the-latest-climate-conspiracy-theory/#more-22599
I think putting science before politics is what scientists do best. Very few politicians do politics very well, and scientists who put money, politics and power before science are almost always doomed.
golf charlie
golfCharlie.
"scientists who put money, politics and power before science are almost always doomed."
If only.
Those acquiring political credibility do get money and power.
That's the entire problem.
Supertroll
Radical rodent
I was a scientist by trade. Of course I accept falsifiability.
I wonder if you do. Please describe the evidence threshold beyond which you would accept AGW.
Golf Charlie
Ain't no such thing as proof in science. One can falsify a hypothesis, but never prove it.
Entropic man
golf charlie
I'm looking forward to your convincing a Natural Variability Denier that's CAGW that's been falsified.
SandyS
Supertroll 8:20 & Entropic Man 9:37 & SandyS 11:27
So the simple and cheapest solution is to stop spending money on Climate Science and see if anybody notices.
If the science is settled, we wouldn't need to spend billions looking for proof.
If the science is settled, why is so much money being wasted looking for proof, when there are far better things to spend money on?
Deniers of Natural Variability, or variability due to causes currently unknown, can argue and protest for the next 20-30 years without funding, and see if anybody cares.
One of the consequences of the Global Warming farce, will be increased cynicism to the next scare that is "backed by science". Sadly, some of the "scares" may be real. Rather than cautionary tales about reckless children crying wolf, future generations will grow up learning about stupid scientists and professional scaremongers crying Global Warming.
golf charlie
Please describe the evidence threshold beyond which you would accept AGW.A good start would be evidence that there had been no climate change before humans took to burning fossil fuels. Much as has been done to eradicate any record of such happening, that evidence does not (and can not) exist, so the theory is already dead in the water.
However, let’s ignore that, and look at other evidence: let’s try the idea that rising CO2 causes warming. Well, both you and I know that is not the case; while there has been some rise in temperatures while the levels of CO2 has also risen, we both know that correlation is not necessarily causation; you only need to look at the period 1945–1975, when CO2 rose, but temperatures actually fell – also, as CO2 has continued to rise during this century, temperatures have more or less flat-lined, so there really is not much correlation, there, no matter how much we pretend.
Now, you have to consider whether the rise in CO2 levels is caused by humans – specifically, the human burning of fossil fuels. Again, there is a paucity of evidence for this; yes, human consumption of fossil fuels has increased as CO2 levels have increased – however, once more, correlation is not necessarily causation: human consumption of fossil fuels has risen exponentially, yet the rise is CO2 levels has been more or less steady, so, yet again, there really is no correlation. There is a general acknowledgement that only about 3% of the rise in CO2 can be attributed to humans; what causes the other 97%?
Personally, I consider it the height of human arrogance to think that we could have any significant effect on global temperatures or climate; we look at trivial minutiae and declare, “This proves it!” only for that claim to be swiftly debunked. Yet it only take ONE volcanic eruption for an immediate, irrefutable effect to be noticed, and for that effect to last for periods from days to weeks to years (which also shows how quickly the Earth can revert back to normal, but that is also ignored).
Sorry, EM, but there is absolutely no evidence that the present changes have been instigated or exacerbated by humans. I do fear that Mother Earth will soon demonstrate that, and we slide back into an ice age. I don’t know about you, but I would rather have years without winters than years without summers.
Not so long ago, you berated many of the scientists on here as they were what you called the “hard sciences” of chemistry and physics, so were not able to cope with unknowns, whereas your field is a “soft science” of biology, which embraces unknowns. An unusual case of cognitive dissonance, if ever there is one; while all the “hard scientists” are highly doubtful that there are no more unknowns, you refuse to acknowledge that there are any unknowns – all have been found; there can be no more. And you return to cuddling your comfort blanket of AGW.
Radical Rodent
Radical Rodent, CO2 has been the only Global Warming farcing element of Climate Science, apart from the gullible who believe in it. I did once, but decided to stop denying common sense.
golf charlie
Greenland is gaining mass. The seas are not rising in any faster measurable way. The dynamics of polar sea ice are historically very wide. And their dynamics have little impact on the rest of the world. The rest of your tedious list is similarly insignificant. And climate extremist kooks will never get off of their "stupid" setting to deal with this and move forward.
hunter
And notice that the the weasel troll dares to pretend that it is up to skeptics to replace their failed hypothesis of climate doom. Talk about EM showing his arse....
hunter
hunter, Trump is someone who doesn't suffer fools. Obviously Gavin Schmidt is welcome to take EM's "Climate Science doesn't require proof" argument into meetings with Trump and his appointees.
John Holdren was appointed by President Obama, and believed that Climate Science doesn't require proof. It is strange what some people will say they believe, in order to save their income.
golf charlie
Ain't no such thing as proof in science. One can falsify a hypothesis, but never prove it.
Dec 17, 2016 at 9:37 AM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man
EM - I have a hypothesis that an empty jamjar weighs less than the same jamjar full of water, so I conduct a test using my digital kitchen scale.
Here is the result of my test: empty jamjar: weight = 177g same jamjar full of water: weight = 514g.
In what sense does my test not provide proof that the full jamjar weighs more than the empty one?
Martin A
Martin A, I forecast/predict that many people who thought they had a career in climate science, will have changed their mind by Christmas 2017. Those that take Entropic Man's standards of scientific hypothesis proving/disproving into job interviews, are going to get laughed at.
I am sure astrologers maintain that because no one has bothered to prove them wrong in a Peer Reviewed Paper, they can't be wrong. As a Libran, I have weighed up the evidence to support Climate Science, and it failed to do so.
For those Climate Scientists who know what is important, Trump is a Gemini.
golf charlie
Martin A
You did not check the calibration of your scale. Nor have you controlled for other variables. You cannot be 100% certain that the difference between the two readings was due entirely to the water.
Proof requires 100% certainty( ask a mathematician )
All you have shown is that the change in scale reading was probably due to the addition of water to the jar. That is not proof.
Entropic man
EM - we are not talking about proofs of things in mathematics, which is something different from proving something in the world of reality.
When there is no room left for doubt, a thing has been proved. I know you have an idealised model of science and how it works, but that is what it is - your idealised view, which is not universally shared.
Martin A
Yet these true believers act as if future CAGW is proven.
===========
kim
Martin A, from the evidence EM has a cynical anti-rational view of science. Far from an idealized view of science.
hunter
EM, all you have achieved is demonstrate why you believe in Global Warming, and have faith in Climate Scientists, despite the lack of evidence.
I lack your faith having realised that Climate Scientists lie. I don't know how long ago Trump realised, but if that is the best that Climate Science can offer, no wonder it went for the fabricated 97% Consensus - it had nothing else.
I do trust my Haematologist. I can understand what the numbers mean, and see the trends improving with each month of Chemo. I do not trust Climate Science, their case history, diagnosis, prognosis or treatment. There is nothing worth trusting.
golf charlie
More dissembling, there, Entropic man. Martin A stated quite categorically that his hypothesis is that a jam-jar filled with water weighs more than an empty jam-jar; he then described a simple experiment to prove his hypothesis. It is so simple that anyone may do it – all it requires is a jam-jar, a source of water and a system of weighing the jam-jar when empty and when full.
You have, as usual, over-thought this, probably expecting us to be thoroughly impressed by your scientificness… er…scientificity… er… whatever.
No calibration of the scale is necessary; no other variables need to be taken into account. If the same scale is used, the accuracy of the scale is irrelevant, as Martin A made no specific claims as to what the measurements could be expected to be, only that the second (the full jar) would be greater than the first (the empty jar), be they extension of a spring, depression of a pressure sensor, weights used in a balance, or distance of the weight on a balance lever. Similarly, he made no mention as to what it was that caused the increase in weight (though it is curious to note that you assumed it must be the water… oh, dear... not very scientific, by your accounts), thus no other variables need to be taken into account.
Radical Rodent
EM - I have noticed inconsistency in what you seem to believe. On the one hand you maintain that a hypothesis cannot be proved by physical tests or measurements.
Yet then you will say things like
If you can show the future cooling I described without a specific cause such as a large volcano, AGW would be falsified and I would accept it.
Is "falsifying" something any different from proving its complement?
Martin A
Martin A 4:37, the end of the delusion is nigh. Climate Scientists need to get honest about the good bits. Only just over 30 days to go. Genuine science has a chance of getting some funding.