Is Anthropogenic (Human-Caused) Global Warming/AGW Falsifiable?

[abu afak]

That's awesome!

Maybe Germany should buy power from Idaho?

You Dishonest POS trying to associate Higher prices in ie Germany/EU with Renewables.
YOUR LINK:

"...Germany

Not far behind Denmark, Germany has the second-highest electricity cost in the world according to most sources. On average, Germans pay approximately 53 cents (USD) per kilowatt-hour for electricity. As in Denmark, about Half of Germany's per-kilowatt-hour rate can be attributed to high Taxes on electricity production. ​

Germany saw a spike in the cost for electricity prices following 2012. After the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, Germany closed many nuclear reactors, creating a much greater demand for electricity from traditional sources. ​

Before 2012, electricity prices in Germany were more closely aligned with the costs of electricity in the United States (which are markedly lower)."​

Without 50% of their cost being Taxes they wouldn't even be on your chart.
ToddsterPoofette is a DISHONEST ONE-LINE HARASSMENT TROLL with NO life and No reason for Posting except Baiting from his Wheelchair.
`
`

 

[BackAgain]

and that I was correct just above​

Wiki​

Opposing (the AGW Consensus)​

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[32] No longer does Any National or International Scientific body Reject the findings of Human-induced effects on Climate Change.[31][33]


Wiki Continues

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature​

Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that almost all climate scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.[1]

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[137] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Seventy-five per cent of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.[138][139][140][141]

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 countries.[142] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[143]

The survey was made up of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from "not at all" to "very much".

To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed, 26.7% agreed to some large extent, 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (2–4), none said they did not agree at all. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. 75 of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:[144]


A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:[145]



A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".[146] This study was criticised in 2016 by Richard Tol,[147] but strongly defended by a companion paper in the same volume.[148]


Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming

A 2012 analysis of published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[149] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only One of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[150] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[151]

James Lawrence Powell reported in 2017 that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[152] In November 2019, his survey of over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles published in the first seven months of 2019 showed that the consensus had reached 100%.[2]

A survey conducted in 2021 found that of a random selection of 3,000 papers examined from 88,125 peer-reviewed studies related to climate that were published since 2012, only 4 were sceptical about man-made climate change.[153]

Depending on expertise, a 2021 survey of 2780 Earth scientist showed that between 91% to 100% agreed human activity is causing climate change. Among climate scientists, 98.7% agreed, a number that grows to 100% when only the climate scientists with high level of expertise are counted (20+ papers published).[4]

`

I wonder why apu afuk hasn’t yet grasped that he isn’t at all persuasive.

His wall o’ words don’t work.

When the point is made that consensus has not a thing to do with scientific method, his rejoinder is to cite some alleged consensus.

 

[Pappadave1]

You got Stuffed on the facts.
Just join a anti-govt Militia MAGAt boy.
You have No topical info for this forum.
`

I'm not at all "anti-government." I AM anti-THIS government, however. It's populated with the dumbest collection of morons it's been my displeasure to observe in my entire 81 years on this planet.

 

[Crick]

I wonder why apu afuk hasn’t yet grasped that he isn’t at all persuasive.

His wall o’ words don’t work.

When the point is made that consensus has not a thing to do with scientific method, his rejoinder is to cite some alleged consensus.

How do you determine what theories are accepted by science and which are rejected?

 

[Crick]

I'm not at all "anti-government." I AM anti-THIS government, however. It's populated with the dumbest collection of morons it's been my displeasure to observe in my entire 81 years on this planet.

Then you apparently weren't watching between 20 Jan 2017 and 19 Jan 2021

 

[abu afak]

I wonder why apu afuk hasn’t yet grasped that he isn’t at all persuasive.

His wall o’ words don’t work.

When the point is made that consensus has not a thing to do with scientific method, his rejoined is to cite some alleged consensus.

Try posting on Topic Conspiracy Clown.

My Sig must really be STICKING you now, what with YOUR and FOX's "Stolen Election" BS Outed/Destroyed ... $787,000,000... the most expensive Lie ever told.
OUCHER!

SQOOOSH!
`

 

[Crick]

I wonder why apu afuk hasn’t yet grasped that he isn’t at all persuasive.

His wall o’ words don’t work.

When the point is made that consensus has not a thing to do with scientific method, his rejoinder is to cite some alleged consensus.

How do you believe AGW is falsified?

 

[BackAgain]

How do you determine what theories are accepted by science and which are rejected?

What difference does that make?

If you have a scientific hypothesis and test it, and then you report the results, the experiment is supposed to be reproducible. If whatever you propose isn’t falsifiable, then does it meet the standards of the scientific method?

You propose a theory. It isn’t falsifiable, but, nevertheless, it has many earmarks of possibly being valid. Now, put it to a vote. Achieve a consensus. And? So what? If it isn’t falsifiable does it still not FAIL the basic precepts of the scientific method?

 

[abu afak]

I'm not at all "anti-government." I AM anti-THIS government, however. It's populated with the dumbest collection of morons it's been my displeasure to observe in my entire 81 years on this planet.

Your an empty MAGAt politico.
You have No Science to share.
You knew/know NOTHING about the topic at hand.
Fvkkk OFF 12 IQ Turd.
`

 

[BackAgain]

Try posting on Topic Conspiracy Clown.

My Sig must really be STICKING you now, what with YOUR and FOX's "Stolen Election" BS Outed/Destroyed ... $787,000,000... the most expensive Lie ever told.
OUCHER!

SQOOOSH!
`

I never even see your sig.

And what you try (ever so futilely) to point to, now, as your latest deflection effort, has nothing to do with the topic. Nor is it responsive to the criticisms of your silly posts.

 

[abu afak]

What difference does that make?

If you have a scientific hypothesis and test it, and then you report the results, the experiment is supposed to be reproducible. If whatever you propose isn’t falsifiable, then does it meet the standards of the scientific method?

You propose a theory. It isn’t falsifiable, but, nevertheless, it has many earmarks of possibly being valid. Now, put it to a vote. Achieve a consensus. And? So what? If it isn’t falsifiable does it still not FAIL the basic precepts of the scientific method?

Already addressed in my OP and throughout.
You have to 'read the thread' vomit brain.
`

 

[BackAgain]

Already addressed in my OP and throughout.
You have to 'read the thread' vomit brain.
`

No. You have to be honest, ya shit for brains.

;

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Are you so ignorant that you think the government HAS any money that it hasn't extracted from those who've actually earned it?

Privileges That Inevitably Extended to Who Would Die in Vietnam

Do heirs earn their wealth? Taking away all inheritances after $100,000 would eliminate any rational need for all the other taxes. Americans aren't serfs; why do we put up with these unmerited privileges? That exclusion of opportunities is what drove Whites to come to America.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

You seem to be trying to avoid answering my specific questions.

Who do you believe is attempting to "extract more money from government" and what makes you say that they are after yours in particular?

To what government bureaucracy have you been asked to give money?

Trustfundie Treehuggers Are Anti-Growth Because They're Set for Life

 

[Crick]

What difference does that make?

It is the thread topic.

If you have a scientific hypothesis and test it, and then you report the results, the experiment is supposed to be reproducible. If whatever you propose isn’t falsifiable, then does it meet the standards of the scientific method?

Given that better than 99% of the world's climate scientist accept AGW, I would say it "meets the standards of the scientific method".

You propose a theory

I have not proposed a theory. AGW, as a hypothesis, was proposed in the 1800s and has since been tested in thousands of studies. The results of those studies have convinced almost every scientist to accept the AGW theory as valid.

It isn’t falsifiable, but, nevertheless, it has many earmarks of possibly being valid.

It is falsifiable.

Now, put it to a vote. Achieve a consensus. And? So what? If it isn’t falsifiable does it still not FAIL the basic precepts of the scientific method?

If it wasn't falsifiable, it would not even BE a proper hypothesis and would never have been accepted as it has been.

If you want to falsify it, do one or more of the following:
Disprove the greenhouse theory
Show that no warming has actually taken place
Show that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas - that it does not absorb IR energy and does not produce warming
Show that humans have not produced the increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere
Show that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not sufficient to have produced the observed warming
Show definitively that some other phenomenon is responsible for the observed warming

Deniers have tried all of these and have failed every time. That is not because the theory is not falsifiable, it is because, so far, no one has shown it to be false.

 

[mamooth]

Of course AGW theory is falsifiable, in a trivial manner.

If temperatures fail to go up in the long term ... say 20 years ... it's falsified.

In contrast, denialism is not falsifiable, so it's not science.

I've asked the deniers several times before what could falsify their beliefs. None have ever answered, because nothing can falsify their beliefs. That's because you can't falsify a purely religious belief, which is what denialism is.

I'll do it again, because it's fun to watch all the denier acolytes run for the hills. Deniers, what hard data would, in your eyes, disprove denialism?

 

[BackAgain]

It is the thread topic.

Given that better than 99% of the world's climate scientist accept AGW, I would say it "meets the standards of the scientific method".

I have not proposed a theory. AGW, as a hypothesis, was proposed in the 1800s and has since been tested in thousands of studies. The results of those studies have convinced almost every scientist to accept the AGW theory as valid.

It is falsifiable.

If it wasn't falsifiable, it would not even BE a proper hypothesis and would never have been accepted as it has been.

If you want to falsify it, do one or more of the following:
Disprove the greenhouse theory
Show that no warming has actually taken place
Show that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas - that it does not absorb IR energy and does not produce warming
Show that humans have not produced the increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere
Show that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not sufficient to have produced the observed warming
Show definitively that some other phenomenon is responsible for the observed warming

Deniers have tried all of these and have failed every time. That is not because the theory is not falsifiable, it is because, so far, no one has shown it to be false.

Scientific method has exactly nothing at all to do with consensus.

 

[Crick]

Scientific method has exactly nothing at all to do with consensus.

You seem to have jumped subject again. The thread topic is whether or not AGW is falsifiable. You said in post #108 that you believe it is not falsifiable. I gave you several rather obvious methods for falsifying it. Why do you think it not falsifiable?

 

[BackAgain]

Scientific method has exactly nothing at all to do with consensus.

Apu afuk can disagree with my statement all he wishes. It’s still true.

Have a doubt? Just look up the actual definition of “scientific method.” Apu afuk is a hack.

 

[BackAgain]

You seem to have jumped subject again. The thread topic is whether or not AGW is falsifiable. You said in post #108 that you believe it is not falsifiable. I gave you several methods that would falsify it. Why would you think it not falsifiable?

It isn’t falsifiable because it can’t be either properly demonstrated or disproved in any lab setting.

You choose to rely on “models” but that’s not the same thing.