Is it just me,

Status
Not open for further replies.
(1) AGW is certainly falsifiable.

If CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) are responsible for warming, therefore reducing GHGs should lead to a reduction in global temperatures. If reducing GHGs does not lead to reduction in global temps, then AGW has been falsified.

First you must demonstrate causality before forwarding a 'solution'.

Like most AGW believers, you've an overly simplistic view of an extremely complex non-linear system.
(2) AGW is supported by valid science. If there are bad reports in the mix as well, that does not invalidate the valid reports. In fact it would be odd in any field to not have bad reports in the mix. The bulk of evidence is weighed by individuals, consensus, etc etc. YMMV, but it is wrong to say that AGW is not supported by valid evidence.

Noone has yet to demonstrate that increases in manmade greenhouse gasses are responsible for any particular trend of change in global weather cycles.
 
AGW is evidence-based, like all science. You are either (1) convinced by the evidence, (2) not convinced by the evidence, or (3) unsure. And your position can change.

THis shouldn't seem particularly threatening, so your tone is a little odd.
Perhaps because my tone is one that involves the logic of scientific discovery. A theory is accepted as valid (one based on science) if it (1) falsifiable, (2) supported with valid science, and (3) has not been falsified. All must be met. AGW meets none of those conditions.

(1) AGW is certainly falsifiable. ....
The predictive models certainly are not. Read.

.... If CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) are responsible for warming, then reducing GHGs will lead to a reduction in global temperatures. ....
You need some foundation for your premise in that conditional. There is none but correlation. Correlation is not causation.

.... That is one way to falsify AGW, therefore AGW is falisfiable. ....
I'm not convinced that you understand the concept of falsifiability; but irrespective of that, your statement is already a non sequitur.

.... (2) AGW is supported by valid science. ....
The predictive models are not falsifiable, thus they are not scientific. Something non-scientific is not adequate support for AGW, if one wants to use science as a foundation of their persuasive rhetoric.
.... If there are bad reports in the mix as well, that does not invalidate the valid reports. ....
Nope, it does not. However, any possible valid science remains to be seen at this point. And, any predictive models that are actually scientific have been falsified (vide supra).
.... In fact it would be odd in any field to not have bad reports in the mix. ....
Hmmm. The last one I know of in my field was decades ago and it was just one.
.... The bulk of evidence is weighed by individuals, consensus, etc etc. ....
Science is not decided by consensus, thankfully.

.... YMMV, ....
Actually, the only mileage is that of the logic of scientific discovery when discussing science.
.... but it is wrong to say that AGW is not supported by valid evidence. ....
An assertion based on belief, not on science.

.... "anthropogenic global warming" - Google Scholar

(3) I am not aware of AGW being falisified. ....
That's a bit general, but AGW itself - that man's CO2 emissions are responsible for warming - does not even need to be falsified as it is already based on the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. With any predictive models, now you are aware:

http://climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-302.pdf
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf

.... How about this: If AGW has been falsified (as you say), then by definition AGW is falsifiable, therefore your assertion that none of the three has been met.... is wrong.
I suggest you inspect the link I provided on the concept of falsifiability.
 
Last edited:
☭proletarian☭;1836321 said:
(1) AGW is certainly falsifiable.

If CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) are responsible for warming, therefore reducing GHGs should lead to a reduction in global temperatures. If reducing GHGs does not lead to reduction in global temps, then AGW has been falsified.

First you must demonstrate causality before forwarding a 'solution'.

Like most AGW believers, you've an overly simplistic view of an extremely complex non-linear system.
(2) AGW is supported by valid science. If there are bad reports in the mix as well, that does not invalidate the valid reports. In fact it would be odd in any field to not have bad reports in the mix. The bulk of evidence is weighed by individuals, consensus, etc etc. YMMV, but it is wrong to say that AGW is not supported by valid evidence.

Noone has yet to demonstrate that increases in manmade greenhouse gasses are responsible for any particular trend of change in global weather cycles.
Yes. Much of the confusion in this is those who do not recognize the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. It's a big problem in most discussions of this sort.
 
I am anti pollution.
Global warming might be a side impact of that pollution.
I say play it safe and reduce pollution.

Did you know that children that grow in areas with lots of pollution spewing vehicles grow up with stunted brains and lungs?

True fact.
 
Perhaps because my tone is one that involves the logic of scientific discovery. A theory is accepted as valid (one based on science) if it (1) falsifiable, (2) supported with valid science, and (3) has not been falsified. All must be met. AGW meets none of those conditions.

(1) AGW is certainly falsifiable. ....
The predictive models certainly are not. Read.

You need some foundation for your premise in that conditional. There is none but correlation. Correlation is not causation.

I'm not convinced that you understand the concept of falsifiability; but irrespective of that, your statement is already a non sequitur.

The predictive models are not falsifiable, thus they are not scientific. Something non-scientific is not adequate support for AGW, if one wants to use science as a foundation of their persuasive rhetoric.
Nope, it does not. However, any possible valid science remains to be seen at this point. And, any predictive models that are actually scientific have been falsified (vide supra).
Hmmm. The last one I know of in my field was decades ago and it was just one.
Science is not decided by consensus, thankfully.

Actually, the only mileage is that of the logic of scientific discovery when discussing science.
An assertion based on belief, not on science.

.... "anthropogenic global warming" - Google Scholar

(3) I am not aware of AGW being falisified. ....
That's a bit general, but AGW itself - that man's CO2 emissions are responsible for warming - does not even need to be falsified as it is already based on the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. With any predictive models, now you are aware:

http://climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-302.pdf
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf

.... How about this: If AGW has been falsified (as you say), then by definition AGW is falsifiable, therefore your assertion that none of the three has been met.... is wrong.
I suggest you inspect the link I provided on the concept of falsifiability.

Seriously? You linked me to a blog?

Thanks for the discussion.
 
(1) AGW is certainly falsifiable. ....
The predictive models certainly are not. Read.

You need some foundation for your premise in that conditional. There is none but correlation. Correlation is not causation.

I'm not convinced that you understand the concept of falsifiability; but irrespective of that, your statement is already a non sequitur.

The predictive models are not falsifiable, thus they are not scientific. Something non-scientific is not adequate support for AGW, if one wants to use science as a foundation of their persuasive rhetoric.
Nope, it does not. However, any possible valid science remains to be seen at this point. And, any predictive models that are actually scientific have been falsified (vide supra).
Hmmm. The last one I know of in my field was decades ago and it was just one.
Science is not decided by consensus, thankfully.

Actually, the only mileage is that of the logic of scientific discovery when discussing science.
An assertion based on belief, not on science.

That's a bit general, but AGW itself - that man's CO2 emissions are responsible for warming - does not even need to be falsified as it is already based on the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. With any predictive models, now you are aware:

http://climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-302.pdf
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf

.... How about this: If AGW has been falsified (as you say), then by definition AGW is falsifiable, therefore your assertion that none of the three has been met.... is wrong.
I suggest you inspect the link I provided on the concept of falsifiability.

Seriously? You linked me to a blog? ....
I linked you to a University of Colorado, Boulder climatologist's site with references therein.

I linked you to a Stanford University Philosophy Department page about the logic of scientific discovery.

And, I linked you to two of several peer-reviewed papers falsifying predictive models.

Respectively.

.... Thanks for the discussion.
Yup.
 
Last edited:
To Prolatarian

Science normally requires skepticism. AGW appears to require a belief system.

So it is not you, I find the AGW supporters rhetoric a bit distrubing at times as well. If they proved it, let them go over the proof with the rest of us one more time(or is it the first time??)

On the other hand, I can not write off AGW completely. The possiblity of changing climes by introducing massive amounts of gases/debris into the atmosphere does possess some theoretical merit.
 
Global warming is the biggest fraud in the history of mankind. Those that truly believe in this poop are not as bright as they would like for others to believe they are.

Even if it is the fraud you believe it to be, calling it the biggest fraud in the history of mankind is just a wee bit over the top.
 
Look, any policy position is going to have its crazies. Most moderates "believe" in some form of AGW and in reducing GHG emission. The reason it looks more crazy to you now than it did before, is that us moderates don't have to be vocal anymore, things are moving in the right direction. SO the only people still being vocal are the crazies.

If Bush was still in office and snubbing Copenhagen or something like this, there'd be a heck of a lot more peopl being vocal about it, not just the crazies.
As AGW is not based on fact, it is a belief. So, advocating for policy based on one's beliefs (faith) in AGW is little different than advocating for legislation based on faith in a deity.

AGW is evidence-based, like all science. You are either (1) convinced by the evidence, (2) not convinced by the evidence, or (3) unsure. And your position can change.

THis shouldn't seem particularly threatening, so your tone is a little odd.

The Mean Old USMB Software said:
You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.

Bummer, Caligirl!

:popcorn:
 
Global warming is the biggest fraud in the history of mankind. Those that truly believe in this poop are not as bright as they would like for others to believe they are.

Pollution, in general is the greatest threat in the history of mankind. Those that truly ignore their poop are not as bright as their children will wish they were.
 
AGW is a faith. There is no longer honest consideration of the evidence (or lack thereof) by the true believers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top