Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow

[SAT]

None of which are science. If you want your claim about science to have any foundation, then show the science that backs up your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.

Yes, they are science. I have backed it up. Read it. Discuss it.

Your claim is that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.

You posted a blog demonstrating the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is due to man.

You've done nothing to support your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.

Idiot.

Sure I have. I've posted, others have posted. You are making excuses. We've established that your complaints are diversionary tactics.

 

[SAT]

IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001 - Complete online versions | UNEP/GRID-Arendal - Publications - Other

Here's a synthesis of research. Each claim is sourced.

 

[Si modo]

IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001 - Complete online versions | UNEP/GRID-Arendal - Publications - Other

Here's a synthesis of research. Each claim is sourced.

Review earlier posts about what makes a hypothesis or theory scientific.

That's not scientific.

 

[Si modo]

Yes, they are science. I have backed it up. Read it. Discuss it.

Your claim is that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.

You posted a blog demonstrating the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is due to man.

You've done nothing to support your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.

Idiot.

Sure I have. I've posted, others have posted. You are making excuses. We've established that your complaints are diversionary tactics.

You can say whatever you want, but you have posted ZERO science to support your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.

Repetition of your same idiocy does not make your idiocy valid.

 

[SAT]

IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001 - Complete online versions | UNEP/GRID-Arendal - Publications - Other

Here's a synthesis of research. Each claim is sourced.

Review earlier posts about what makes a hypothesis or theory scientific.

That's not scientific.

Yes, Si, it's scientific. You are talking over your own head. Please, go chew on that link.

 

[Si modo]

IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001 - Complete online versions | UNEP/GRID-Arendal - Publications - Other

Here's a synthesis of research. Each claim is sourced.

Review earlier posts about what makes a hypothesis or theory scientific.

That's not scientific.

Yes, Si, it's scientific. You are talking over your own head. Please, go chew on that link.

No need to chew on a thing. The IPCC Third Assessment is nothing new.

It also promotes non-scientific models.

Here, read this if that is unclear to you. An Insult to All Science – Are We Beyond Reproach? Note the comments about falsifiability:

....

Climate scientists peddling predictive models, and the environmentalists who have compiled them, present these models where almost any combination of datasets are consistent with the predictive model indicating near disaster. The Third Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has the most celebrity in that predictive science. Climatologist Roger Pielke, for example, has demonstrated that there has yet to be a dataset that is not consistent with these models. The prediction scientists rarely articulate a hypothetical dataset that would be inconsistent with a predictive model. A hypothesis or theory is falsifiable, thus scientific, if it can be both verified and falsified through physical experiments and/or observations. If there exists no dataset for which the IPCC predictive models are inconsistent, the model was never scientific. Where is the demarcation of predictive climate science and pseudo-science if there is no falsifiability?

....

 

[SAT]

Repetition of your same idiocy does not make your idiocy valid.

Please etch those words into the stone that makes up the contents of your skull.

We have established that your complaints about sources are a diversionary tactic.

This is a summary of the scientific basis for AGW. Read it and get back to us.

IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001 - Complete online versions | UNEP/GRID-Arendal - Publications - Other

 

[Si modo]

Repetition of your same idiocy does not make your idiocy valid.

Please etch those words into the stone that makes up the contents of your skull.

We have established that your complaints about sources are a diversionary tactic.

This is a summary of the scientific basis for AGW. Read it and get back to us.

IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001 - Complete online versions | UNEP/GRID-Arendal - Publications - Other

But it is not science and it certainly is not based on science. It is based on predictive models that are not science. Thus my suggestion that you understand falsifiability.

 

[SAT]

Repetition of your same idiocy does not make your idiocy valid.

Please etch those words into the stone that makes up the contents of your skull.

We have established that your complaints about sources are a diversionary tactic.

This is a summary of the scientific basis for AGW. Read it and get back to us.

IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001 - Complete online versions | UNEP/GRID-Arendal - Publications - Other

But it is not science and it certainly is not based on science. It is based on predictive models that are not science. Thus my suggestion that you understand falsifiability.

And a new objection emerges from your list. Now the problem is, once again, that you don't trust computer models. We see the models, based on data collection, being proven right, here in the real world.

‘Climate models are unproven’—Actually, GCM’s have many confirmed successes under their belts | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist

 

[Si modo]

Please etch those words into the stone that makes up the contents of your skull.

We have established that your complaints about sources are a diversionary tactic.

This is a summary of the scientific basis for AGW. Read it and get back to us.

IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001 - Complete online versions | UNEP/GRID-Arendal - Publications - Other

But it is not science and it certainly is not based on science. It is based on predictive models that are not science. Thus my suggestion that you understand falsifiability.

And a new objection emerges from your list. Now the problem is, once again, that you don't trust computer models. We see the models, based on data collection, being proven right, here in the real world.

‘Climate models are unproven’—Actually, GCM’s have many confirmed successes under their belts | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist

Of course the models are proven. Non-falsifiable models always are.

Non-falsifiable models are also non-scientific, by definition.

 

[SAT]

Of course the models are proven. Non-falsifiable models always are.

What does that even mean?

Predictive models are being validated, and it's somehow because they are not valid?

 

[Si modo]

Of course the models are proven. Non-falsifiable models always are.

What does that even mean?

....

It's quite telling that you don't know.

.... Predictive models are being validated, and it's somehow because they are not valid?

Of course these predictive models are validated. Non-falsifiable models always are valid. But, they are not scientific models, by definition.

 

[SAT]

Of course the models are proven. Non-falsifiable models always are.

What does that even mean?

....

It's quite telling that you don't know.

.... Predictive models are being validated, and it's somehow because they are not valid?

Of course these predictive models are validated. Non-falsifiable models always are valid. But, they are not scientific models, by definition.

Yes, it's quite telling alright.

So apparently we're on excuse number 745-because you can't replicate the solar system in the lab, AGW is unprovable. Is there a spazz emoticon here, because it's needed right now.

Not all science happens in a lab, Si.

Here's a link for you:

There is no proof in science, but there are mountains of evidence | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist

 

[Si modo]

What does that even mean?

....

It's quite telling that you don't know.

.... Predictive models are being validated, and it's somehow because they are not valid?

Of course these predictive models are validated. Non-falsifiable models always are valid. But, they are not scientific models, by definition.

Yes, it's quite telling alright.

So apparently we're on excuse number 745-because you can't replicate the solar system in the lab, AGW is unprovable.

....

Let us know where I said that.

I'd tell you I'd wait for you to do that, but I know you can't.

.... Is there a spazz emoticon here, because it's needed right now.

Not all science happens in a lab, Si.

....

Uh huh.

Where did I say it doesn't?

Nowhere.

.... Here's a link for you:

There is no proof in science, but there are mountains of evidence | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist

Then present some evidence. Make sure it is science, because this IS a scientific topic.

 

[daveman]

What do you do for a living? What's your education and training?

Yo, RT, you missed this post. I expect deliberately.

That's right, davedumb, I do deliberately ignore most of your drivel because it is just too retarded and pointless to bother with. Like this post of yours. You apparently are so extremely stupid that you can't comprehend that this is an anonymous forum. Anyone can say anything about their personal lives, like what they "do for a living" or what their "education and training" are, and nobody can check on their honesty so it is meaningless. The only things relevant or meaningful to this debate are the facts that can be verified or supported with evidence. But you like to deflect the debate into irrelevancies and unprovable personal details because the actual verifiable scientific evidence is all against your denier cult fantasies and lies. So no, bozo, I'm not going to respond to your idiocies and attempts to derail the thread into pointless unprovable personal claims. Troll elsewhere, retard.

I think it's pretty safe to say your entire scientific background consists solely of reading leftist blogs.

You don't really think you have any credibility, do you?

 

[daveman]

I bet he won't answer directly. he will make some vague reference to something but no direct claim or answer...

And, you win the bet!

I think dave hit a sore spot....

Sure sounds like.

 

[daveman]

IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001 - Complete online versions | UNEP/GRID-Arendal - Publications - Other

Here's a synthesis of research. Each claim is sourced.

The IPCC has zero credibility. Well, except among idiots who have no clue about how science works.

 

[SAT]

It's quite telling that you don't know.

Of course these predictive models are validated. Non-falsifiable models always are valid. But, they are not scientific models, by definition.

Yes, it's quite telling alright.

So apparently we're on excuse number 745-because you can't replicate the solar system in the lab, AGW is unprovable.

....

Let us know where I said that.

I'd tell you I'd wait for you to do that, but I know you can't.

.... Is there a spazz emoticon here, because it's needed right now.

Not all science happens in a lab, Si.

....

Uh huh.

Where did I say it doesn't?

Nowhere.

Did you use those exact words? No. Is that what you're claiming? Yes.

‘The null hypothesis says warming is natural’—An inappropriate test, and one that would fail anyway | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist

Objection: Natural variability is the null hypothesis; there must be compelling evidence of an anthropogenic CO2 warming effect before we take it seriously.

Answer: The null hypothesis is a statistical test, and might be a reasonable approach if we were looking only for statistical correlation between increasing CO2 and increasing temperature. But we're not -- there are known mechanisms involved whose effects can be predicted and measured. These effects are the result of simple laws of physics, even if their interactions are quite complex.

But putting aside inappropriate application of the null hypothesis, we are indeed well outside the realm of natural global variability, as seen over the last 2,000 years and even over the last 12,000 years. We can go back several hundreds of thousands of years and we still see that the temperature swings of the glacial/interglacial cycles were an order of magnitude slower than the warming rate we are now experiencing.

In fact, outside of catastrophic geological events like the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum there are no known precedents for warming this fast on a global scale. I'd say the case for "it's all natural" is the one that needs explaining.

 

[Si modo]

Yes, it's quite telling alright.

So apparently we're on excuse number 745-because you can't replicate the solar system in the lab, AGW is unprovable.

....

Let us know where I said that.

I'd tell you I'd wait for you to do that, but I know you can't.

Uh huh.

Where did I say it doesn't?

Nowhere.

Did you use those exact words? No. Is that what you're claiming? Yes.

‘The null hypothesis says warming is natural’—An inappropriate test, and one that would fail anyway | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist

Objection: Natural variability is the null hypothesis; there must be compelling evidence of an anthropogenic CO2 warming effect before we take it seriously.

Answer: The null hypothesis is a statistical test, and might be a reasonable approach if we were looking only for statistical correlation between increasing CO2 and increasing temperature. But we're not -- there are known mechanisms involved whose effects can be predicted and measured. These effects are the result of simple laws of physics, even if their interactions are quite complex.

But putting aside inappropriate application of the null hypothesis, we are indeed well outside the realm of natural global variability, as seen over the last 2,000 years and even over the last 12,000 years. We can go back several hundreds of thousands of years and we still see that the temperature swings of the glacial/interglacial cycles were an order of magnitude slower than the warming rate we are now experiencing.

In fact, outside of catastrophic geological events like the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum there are no known precedents for warming this fast on a global scale. I'd say the case for "it's all natural" is the one that needs explaining.

No. That's not what I am saying.

Read the words I write, not what you imagine you see.

I'm not talking about the null hypothesis.

 

[SAT]

Let us know where I said that.

I'd tell you I'd wait for you to do that, but I know you can't.

Uh huh.

Where did I say it doesn't?

Nowhere.

Did you use those exact words? No. Is that what you're claiming? Yes.

‘The null hypothesis says warming is natural’—An inappropriate test, and one that would fail anyway | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist

No. That's not what I am saying.

Read the words I write, not what you imagine you see.

I'm not talking about the null hypothesis.

Now according to this:

The null hypothesis is a sub-set of the Popperian falsifiable scientific statement.

Philosophical, scientific and statistical background to evidence based medicine

So please be more specific about what you're trying to say. You are endlessly vague, which does make people wonder if you're confident in what you're saying.