CDZ "Climate Science" is no longer any such thing.

[RedTeamTex]

Let's discuss Science.

One of the most important learning experiences of my life was in response to a bone-dry and monotone physics professor. I dropped Physics after that first day of class and took Astronomy instead...

Best decision of my college career. I got an incredible professor who gave me the best, hardest won B of my life. More importantly than the math skills, I awoke as a citizen thanks to a captivating lecture on Galileo, and the intersection of politics and science.

(At the time, like most young people, I was more disposed to the left side of the fence and was feeling pretty good about the Clinton campaign in 1992. Hey, we were all young once.)

The tale of personal peril of a scientist pursuing the truth, risking life and limb from a displeased church in those days, hit me square in the chest, and what Science learned from the episode is critical to its very definition. Let me take a stab at (at least a little) philosophical stringency for the sake of discussion.

First: Science is an activity: the formal human pursuit of knowledge. Its methodology is the formal way to organize scientific activity according to the best possible adherence to logical deduction. Humans can engage in a number of activities, most of which aren't 'science.' Even 'scientists' can engage 'science' by relative degrees of quality...we can say some scientists are better than others, or products of science are better than others.

As in many professions, there's often an organized code of behavior adopted by professional peers. If we assume the professional organization is effective in facilitating good scientific output to a degree better than what that society's production of science would be without it, then we can say adherence to the standards of this professional organization are in and of themselves components of quality science. (e.g. publication standards, ethical guidelines, etc.)

What Galileo's story contributed to Science was History's most dramatic vindication of what later became known as Occam's razor, a principle of assigning Scientific preference among a set of competing theories inversely to the number (or perhaps degree of magnitude) of assumptions required for it to be proven true. Simply put: "the simplest explanation is the 'best.'"

Does the "best" theory indicate its "truth?" Not necessarily. So let's take a moment to examine why Science should "prefer" the simpler theory:

Remembering that Science is a human activity of applying a specific Methodology in the pursuit of "truth," this activity is simply made more efficient by prioritizing the critical examination of good theories.

Remembering we 'test' theories scientifically by trying to disprove them, it's simply more productive to sequence that work by tacking the theories whose assumptions are fewest and easiest to potentially disprove.

If you think I've introduced a 'business-like' metric to the definition of 'good' science, you'd be right. And this conforms to our collective criticism of science, specifically axiomizing why some science is better than "junk science." When does legitimate science leave the reservation and become junk science? When data (perhaps even scientific data) is promoted in a context other than strict scientific methodology. (e.g. "studies show vitamin 'x' helps prevent heart disease"...said study may have been the best data science had to offer at the time, but the huckster selling vitamin 'x' neglects to mention the study is out of date; some scientific journal research would show more recent critical examination the original claim and gives the initial suggestion some pause.)

This gives us the ability to judge Galileo's conduct of Science. While no one at the time was willing to venture too loudly that celestial bodies didn't move according to perfect circles, the Copernican Theory of the heavens, combined with Galileo's telescope data, became the theory of the fewest assumptions, quantitatively the theory of fewest epicycles.

So far nothing I've said so far should be controversial. While some may elect to take a crack at my conditioning scientific 'quality' according to efficiency of scientific output, I think that's a tough row to how. I doubt many scientist would be prepared to successfully argue otherwise. It's relevant to political discourse because science requires resources, and in our case taxpayer resources. We have a direct motive to judge quality of science ourselves as citizens.

For those willing to concede to this generally agreeable consensus of measuring relative scientific quality, I claim the following conclusions become inescapable:

Contemporary Liberal politics has corrupted Environmental Science in a fashion not unlike Galileo's day when church politics corrupted the conduct of Astronomy---scientific progress subverted by political motives.

Professionals in environmental scientists have abandoned the course dictated by the Scientific Method and Occam's razor to purport a theory of anthropogenic global warming to such a degree that it's a political objective of popular conversion rather than a set of assumptions to be sequenced for critical testing, using science's best resources to disprove.

Having inconveniently defied its original computer model prophecies, we are left with a 'theory' whose only hope of remaining in the course of scientific discourse is by answering this question: "What would it take to disprove the assertion?"

"Environmentalists" of the 'Climate Science' persuasion, the burden of proof is now upon you.

In what respect is a 'scientific' theory of anthropogenic global warming falsifiable?

Settle it, if you can.

 

[defcon4]

There are some who would be happy to address the issue with you... here are three, the rest will come
Crick
mamooth
Matthew

 

[Obiwan]

There are some who would be happy to address the issue with you... here are three, the rest will come
Crick
mamooth
Matthew

Infrastructure!!!

 

[MisterBeale]

Wow, this is one of the most well written logically consistent posts I have seen around these parts in a long time.

Unfortunately, you will get no answers.

There are some who would be happy to address the issue with you... here are three, the rest will come
Crick
mamooth
Matthew

None of these posters have the intellect to offer up the qualifications for the falsifiablity of their theory. Mamooth might have the comprehension of the theory he supports, but he is far to lazy to even look into it. He probably is the only one that understands what a null hypothesis is, but were he to apply such a standard, would surely see the folly he is engaged in.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The OP is awesome. I wonder if he is told that often enough?

 

[Iceweasel]

It sounds like you are trying to introduce facts into an emotional issue. Climate change is the religion that wayward souls have sought for decades. Nothing else was really coming to fruition, progress was slow and painful.

With their new found religion Warmers can now, not only finally enjoy purpose in life, but they have the blessings of government to go with it! It does not get sweeter than that. They can take money out of your pockets, give it to deserving people fighting the good fight, even if it's a hopeless effort and wage holy jihad against deniers.

Their high priests give them all the facts they need, as it is given to them by holy revelation. A state run religion that will someday make Christianity look like a trip to Walmart.

 

[cnm]

In what respect is a 'scientific' theory of anthropogenic global warming falsifiable?

You mean like if human activity doubled CO₂ in the atmosphere and no rise in temperature was observed?

 

[konradv]

In what respect is a 'scientific' theory of anthropogenic global warming falsifiable?

Prove where excess CO2 is coming from, if not from man, and/or prove that CO2 does not absorb infrared radiation. That should be easy enough, but the deniers have trouble with the basics, that's why all we hear about is how the data is treated. The deniers know that most people don't understand advanced statistics or higher mathematics, so they can make it appear that it's all voodoo and fudging.

 

[RedTeamTex]

Prove where excess CO2 is coming from, if not from man, and/or prove that CO2 does not absorb infrared radiation. That should be easy enough, but the deniers have trouble with the basics, that's why all we hear about is how the data is treated. The deniers know that most people don't understand advanced statistics or higher mathematics, so they can make it appear that it's all voodoo and fudging.

I should have been more specific and mentioned the theory I'm objecting as scientifically unsubstantiated is specifically:

"Humanity is causing excess global warming to a degree imminently catastrophic to human existence." I hope that was understood. If not, thanks for the opportunity to clarify.

Feel free to provide us a lecture on advanced statistics and higher math, if you believe it helps your case.

 

[mamooth]

Contemporary Liberal politics has corrupted Environmental Science in a fashion not unlike Galileo's day when church politics corrupted the conduct of Astronomy---scientific progress subverted by political motives.

You're projecting your own way of thinking on to the reason-based people. You don't see us reason-based people bringing up politics. We talk about the science. Being that all the science contradicts your side, you can't talk about the science, so you have to divert by trying to make it entirely about politics.

Professionals in environmental scientists have abandoned the course dictated by the Scientific Method and Occam's razor to purport a theory of anthropogenic global warming to such a degree that it's a political objective of popular conversion rather than a set of assumptions to be sequenced for critical testing, using science's best resources to disprove.

You don't seem to understand Occam's. Here's how Occam's works.

Which is more likely?

1. You've been misled by a small group of political cultists.

2. A vast secret global socialist conspiracy involving millions of people is faking the data.

Occam's says #1 is far more likely to be the correct answer, being that it is by far the simplest theory that explains all of the observed data.

Having inconveniently defied its original computer model prophecies,

The models have performed very well. However, even if no models existed, the direct physical evidence alone would give solid evidence supporting global warming theory.

I know you've heard differently, but that's because your political cult has fed you a bunch of baloney. Everyone actually involved in the science knows that. Your side is not ignored by the scientists because of a socialist conspiracy. Your side is ignored because it stinks at the science, and because it lies a lot.

In what respect is a 'scientific' theory of anthropogenic global warming falsifiable?

Many things could falsify global warming theory. Here are some of them.

1. A sustained lack of warming.

2. A lack of a CO2 increase

3. A lack of sea level rise

4. Stratospheric warming

5. Steady outgoing longwave radiation (instead of decreasing in the GHG bands)

6. Steady backradiation (instead of increasing)

Global warming theory is real science, hence many things can falsify it.

Settle it, if you can.

Now, your turn. What evidence could falsify your beliefs? If you can't provide any, that will demonstrate how your beliefs are based on emotion instead of reason.

 

[konradv]

Prove where excess CO2 is coming from, if not from man, and/or prove that CO2 does not absorb infrared radiation. That should be easy enough, but the deniers have trouble with the basics, that's why all we hear about is how the data is treated. The deniers know that most people don't understand advanced statistics or higher mathematics, so they can make it appear that it's all voodoo and fudging.

I should have been more specific and mentioned the theory I'm objecting as scientifically unsubstantiated is specifically: "Humanity is causing excess global warming to a degree imminently catastrophic to human existence." I hope that was understood. If not, thanks for the opportunity to clarify. Feel free to provide us a lecture on advanced statistics and higher math, if you believe it helps your case.

Thanks for letting us know you're moving the goalposts, but I will accept your admission that mankind can effect the climate. As for higher mathematics, I don't really get them either. I, however, prefer to believe the experts, rather than those taking money from energy companies, specifically to muddy the waters.

 

[RedTeamTex]

You're projecting your own way of thinking on to the reason-based people. You don't see us reason-based people bringing up politics. We talk about the science. Being that all the science contradicts your side, you can't talk about the science, so you have to divert by trying to make it entirely about politics.

"Reason-based people" seems to be starting us off on the foot of expecting me to assume professional scientists are in fact something resembling emotionally incorruptible Vulcans, and I should take the published product of any professional scientist at face value by virtue of their reasonableness.

While I am prepared (and often do) lend a lot of initial credence to experts I'm not prepared (or qualified) to second guess, I consider myself versed enough in science and the history of science to know scientists, individually and collectively, can get things very wrong for very long durations of time. I refute the assertion I've made my inquiry entirely about politics. Perhaps it is "ultimately" about politics, but let's say I'm a reasonably educated voter questioning the amount of resources I'm willing to invest in certain proposals based on what's been presented to me as 'scientifically settled' data. You can be sure I'm an open-minded guy who loves learning something new even if my original impression turns out to be incorrect. If it's scientifically settled, then I'm a very sellable guy. I'm sold on Quantum Physics and the Theory of Evolution. I object to the teaching of 'Creationism' in science class because I believe it doesn't qualify as scientific discourse.

The impure truth of the matter is that science has always relied upon scarce resources to enjoin and therefore all sorts of interesting political machinations have resulted in the periphery...and occasionally intruded into the lab, so to speak. The history of science on this planet is very un-Vulcan like. What makes science work as well as it does is the degree it motives colleagues to critically examine each other, much like politics. I dare suggest that perhaps we rely upon politics (especially the 'small stakes' of vicious university politics) to propel science.

While I do believe modern politics surrounding the subject of climate science has recently impaired that dynamic, I do recognize a logically sound argument when I see one. I'm quite prepared to admit it if I do.

One thing I don't regard as logical argument is "appeal to experts."

You don't seem to understand Occam's. Here's how Occam's works.

Which is more likely?

1. You've been misled by a small group of political cultists.

2. A vast secret global socialist conspiracy involving millions of people is faking the data.

Occam's says #1 is far more likely to be the correct answer, being that it is by far the simplest theory that explains all of the observed data.

Let's assume you're right. The cultists have brought to my attention some questions that I haven't seen successfully addressed just yet. I'm hoping the reason-based people can put it to rest for me. Should be a piece of cake!

Was it a vast conspiracy of millions that impeded adoption of the Coppurnican model? Or the assertion men were more intelligent than women because of statistical studies of cranium sizing? We're not killing JFK here...people just have biases, and sometimes professional scientists aren't immune despite their best efforts. Sometimes these biases collect into an embarrassing episode where a bad idea goes on for a little too long without proper examination. If this is one such example, it isn't the first nor will it be the last.

If it's not, then the science is settled and proving it to me should be exceedingly easy.

The models have performed very well. However, even if no models existed, the direct physical evidence alone would give solid evidence supporting global warming theory.

I know you've heard differently, but that's because your political cult has fed you a bunch of baloney. Everyone actually involved in the science knows that. Your side is not ignored by the scientists because of a socialist conspiracy. Your side is ignored because it stinks at the science, and because it lies a lot.

Am I recalling incorrectly that the climate scientists were hypothesizing a "hockey stick" growth in global temperature that failed to materialize within a significant margin of error around the high slope? (Again, I was remiss in not first specifically mentioning I'm soliciting support for global warming of imminent disaster magnitude.)

Many things could falsify global warming theory. Here are some of them.

1. A sustained lack of warming.

2. A lack of a CO2 increase

3. A lack of sea level rise

4. Stratospheric warming

5. Steady outgoing longwave radiation (instead of decreasing in the GHG bands)

6. Steady backradiation (instead of increasing)

Global warming theory is real science, hence many things can falsify it.

Thank you for the list!

1. How long a period qualifies as "sustained?"

2. Just for the record, can you please specify the period of time and statistically significant measurement that constitutes "increase" for CO2 concentrations?

3. Same as above for sea level.

4. Please feel free to illucidate me on this one. Ultimately I'll ask again for metric thresholds.

5. & 6. ditto.

Now, your turn. What evidence could falsify your beliefs? If you can't provide any, that will demonstrate how your beliefs are based on emotion instead of reason.

An argument is sound where :
1. Its posits collectively preclude any possibility of falsehood of the conclusion.
2. All the posits are confirmed true.

I'm even capable of changing my beliefs on something short of a verifiably sound argument, but certainly a sound argument should do it.

 

[konradv]

Occam's razor should tell you to "look to the money". Much is made of climatologists working on grants and fudging data to get money. However, if money is the key, there are vastly greater sums on the energy provider side. The scientists who work for them, unlike those who work on government grants, don't actually have to do any science, they just have to cast doubt on those who do. That alone should make you question the deniers' arguments, if Occam's razor means anything at all.

 

[mamooth]

Im I recalling incorrectly that the climate scientists were hypothesizing a "hockey stick" growth in global temperature that failed to materialize within a significant margin of error around the high slope?

The hockey stick, having been measured by multiple different methods, falls more under the category of "data" than "hypothesis".

(Again, I was remiss in not first specifically mentioning I'm soliciting support for global warming of imminent disaster magnitude.)

"Imminent disaster" is your strawman, so there's no need to address it. "Slow motion disaster" would be more of what's being predicted.

1. How long a period qualifies as "sustained?"

30 years is generally regarded as a statistically significant period. Since the warming has been steady and ongoing for the past decades, that's not going to be a problem. The mythical "pause" or "hiatus" never happened.

2. Just for the record, can you please specify the period of time and statistically significant measurement that constitutes "increase" for CO2 concentrations?

3. Same as above for sea level.

4. Please feel free to illucidate me on this one. Ultimately I'll ask again for metric thresholds.

5. & 6. ditto.

I could spend a long time doing that, but I won't. Convincing you absolutely is not a priority, as the good science is there, whether you believe it or not.

An argument is sound where :
1. Its posits collectively preclude any possibility of falsehood of the conclusion.
2. All the posits are confirmed true.

I'm even capable of changing my beliefs on something short of a verifiably sound argument, but certainly a sound argument should do it.

That's not how science works. Science accepts the best theory that explains the observed data. That theory is currently global warming theory.

If you want that theory discarded, stating "but it's not proven absolutely!" is not sufficient. You have to provide an alternative theory that's even better at explaining the data. So far, the deniers haven't even tried to put forth such a theory.

I will point out that "It's just a natural cycle!" is not a good theory, being that it consists of handwaving and invoking unknown magic, and that it's contradicted by the observed data. "Natural cycles" theories are contradicted by the observed stratospheric cooling, increase in backradiation and decrease in outgoing longwave, hence such theories are wrong.

 

[RedTeamTex]

Occam's razor should tell you to "look to the money". Much is made of climatologists working on grants and fudging data to get money. However, if money is the key, there are vastly greater sums on the energy provider side. The scientists who work for them, unlike those who work on government grants, don't actually have to do any science, they just have to cast doubt on those who do. That alone should make you question the deniers' arguments, if Occam's razor means anything at all.

Well, I think I am questioning the "deniers" argument, too. As I said, let's assume mamooth is right: I'm the victim of a small group of cultists misleading me. So testing this theory, I'm going to the educated liberals I should dutifully trust on such matters to explain how the declaration that "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is settled" relies on logically sound argument instead of something short of that hiding behind appeals to authority.

However, if we followed your line of thought and said bogus science rises in correlation to funding, we should only trust scientists who work for free. I think your premise needs a little work. If I'm expected to rely on these suggested invocations of "Occam's razor" I've seen so far, I think I'd have to see some good, stringent modeling on political science dynamics first.

But since there's no big (or small) oil company paying me off, I have a better idea.

Before we start to debate which end of the political spectrum is most motivated to misrepresent the true state of scientific research--let's see a presentation of evidence for the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming that I hear has been scientifically settled? Surely something so inescapable as a scientifically settled argument will expose the well funded oil-backed denier cultist argument for the misrepresentation it is?

We've been informed my side just isn't very good at science. Please elucidate us! We'll do our best to keep up with the higher math, if it's required.

 

[konradv]

Before we start to debate which end of the political spectrum is most motivated to misrepresent the true state of scientific research--let's see a presentation of evidence for the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming that I hear has been scientifically settled? Surely something so inescapable as a scientifically settled argument will expose the well funded oil-backed denier cultist argument for the misrepresentation it is?

I'm just talking about global warming. "Catastrophic" and "imminent" are loaded words that don't do either side any good. Either CO2 is going up or it isn't. Either it absorbs infrared radiation or it doesn't. Whatever the time course, if those two things are true, warming is inevitable. Looking to the future then, this is the hockey stick that counts, because it's the one that really contributes to added CO2 and subsequent warming.

 

[RedTeamTex]

Im I recalling incorrectly that the climate scientists were hypothesizing a "hockey stick" growth in global temperature that failed to materialize within a significant margin of error around the high slope?

The hockey stick, having been measured by multiple different methods, falls more under the category of "data" than "hypothesis".

(Again, I was remiss in not first specifically mentioning I'm soliciting support for global warming of imminent disaster magnitude.)

"Imminent disaster" is your strawman, so there's no need to address it. "Slow motion disaster" would be more of what's being predicted.

1. How long a period qualifies as "sustained?"

30 years is generally regarded as a statistically significant period. Since the warming has been steady and ongoing for the past decades, that's not going to be a problem. The mythical "pause" or "hiatus" never happened.

2. Just for the record, can you please specify the period of time and statistically significant measurement that constitutes "increase" for CO2 concentrations?

3. Same as above for sea level.

4. Please feel free to illucidate me on this one. Ultimately I'll ask again for metric thresholds.

5. & 6. ditto.

I could spend a long time doing that, but I won't. Convincing you absolutely is not a priority, as the good science is there, whether you believe it or not.

An argument is sound where :
1. Its posits collectively preclude any possibility of falsehood of the conclusion.
2. All the posits are confirmed true.

I'm even capable of changing my beliefs on something short of a verifiably sound argument, but certainly a sound argument should do it.

That's not how science works. Science accepts the best theory that explains the observed data. That theory is currently global warming theory.

If you want that theory discarded, stating "but it's not proven absolutely!" is not sufficient. You have to provide an alternative theory that's even better at explaining the data. So far, the deniers haven't even tried to put forth such a theory.

I will point out that "It's just a natural cycle!" is not a good theory, being that it consists of handwaving and invoking unknown magic, and that it's contradicted by the observed data. "Natural cycles" theories are contradicted by the observed stratospheric cooling, increase in backradiation and decrease in outgoing longwave, hence such theories are wrong.

Mamooth, I do sincerely appreciate you engaging the thread.

If "imminent" is a poor choice of words and "catastrophic" too charged, then I can negotiate another one. Ultimately though, I feel like there has to be some threshold of "urgency" applied to the magnitude of global warming for this discussion since that's what being promoted on the policy level. Since I'm being asked to cough up funding for variety of environmental initiatives, at the end of the day I need a clear-cut cost-benefit risk analysis, and that means I have to have some really, really good scientific numbers. I can buy "slow-motion catastrophe," if you (or someone else) can give me a workable range of how slow.

Let me size up this bit on the hockey stick and see if you'll agree this is where the discussion would go:
I'll say that I heard global temperatures projected by the Mann 'hocky stick' graph didn't pan out for these first years in the 21st century. You'll say that's bogus because the NOAA got rid of 'the pause.' Then we'd go into a discussion of their methods of 'adjustments' to their raw data readings. Would that be an accurate expectation of the debate from there?

I do acknowledge that you or any one else indulging me on an argument could end up being an enormous investment of time and effort. It doesn't hurt my feelings that you think convincing me is not a priority. However, since we're on a forum where others could benefit from the discussion, I hope you or someone else can carry the torch for the other side. Even if some regard me as insincere when I say I'm reachable, surely some others reading this are.

As I've mentioned, Science only "accepts" the 'best' theory that explains the observed data long enough to queue it up first for more critical examination. I'm perfectly able to accept that your understanding of 'global warming theory' may currently be the 'best' scientific theory available to us. That claim by itself, however, is a LONG way from "The Science is settled." If the science were settled, then something right darn close to a logically sound argument should be simple to furnish.

And do I really strike you as the type who says "if it's not proven absolutely, then the theory must be discarded?" Now that would hurt my feelings. : P

 

[konradv]

If "imminent" is a poor choice of words and "catastrophic" too charged, then I can negotiate another one. Ultimately though, I feel like there has to be some threshold of "urgency" applied to the magnitude of global warming for this discussion since that's what being promoted on the policy level. Since I'm being asked to cough up funding for variety of environmental initiatives, at the end of the day I need a clear-cut cost-benefit risk analysis, and that means I have to have some really, really good scientific numbers. I can buy "slow-motion catastrophe," if you (or someone else) can give me a workable range of how slow.

Let me size up this bit on the hockey stick and see if you'll agree this is where the discussion would go:
I'll say that I heard global temperatures projected by the Mann 'hocky stick' graph didn't pan out for these first years in the 21st century. You'll say that's bogus because the NOAA got rid of 'the pause.' Then we'd go into a discussion of their methods of 'adjustments' to their raw data readings. Would that be an accurate expectation of the debate from there?

I do acknowledge that you or any one else indulging me on an argument could end up being an enormous investment of time and effort. It doesn't hurt my feelings that you think convincing me is not a priority. However, since we're on a forum where others could benefit from the discussion, I hope you or someone else can carry the torch for the other side. Even if some regard me as insincere when I say I'm reachable, surely some others reading this are.

As I've mentioned, Science only "accepts" the 'best' theory that explains the observed data long enough to queue it up first for more critical examination. I'm perfectly able to accept that your understanding of 'global warming theory' may currently be the 'best' scientific theory available to us. That claim by itself, however, is a LONG way from "The Science is settled." If the science were settled, then something right darn close to a logically sound argument should be simple to furnish.

I can't help but think you're just rehashing denialist talking points and not adding anything new to the debate. Talking about the "pause" and mentioning the "science is settled" controversy, only serves to points out your apparent bises. If it's supposed to be about the science and correct interpretation, there should be no need to bring slanted code words into the discussion. It's not good enough to appear even-handed, you need to bring some substance to the table.

 

[RedTeamTex]

I can't help but think you're just rehashing denialist talking points and not adding anything new to the debate. Talking about the "pause" and mentioning the "science is settled" controversy, only serves to points out your apparent bises. If it's supposed to be about the science and correct interpretation, there should be no need to bring slanted code words into the discussion. It's not good enough to appear even-handed, you need to bring some substance to the table.

As I said, "the burden of proof is upon you." Which in fact it kinda is, if you'll think about it.

If my biases are showing, I'm inviting anyone who can to expose their vice. Feeble 'talking points' surely won't obscure the revelation of settled science. If by "denier" you mean to imply someone who doesn't understand scientific conclusions and cannot judge them on scientific merits, then I think I (and others here) can disprove that accusation.

I am doing more than mentioning "science is settled." I'm directly calling it out. I'm soliciting proof of this assertion. Socrates didn't have to "bring anything to the table" to get his job done. I won't waive my right to cite points of fact at some point, but the bottom line is I'm hoping for a discussion of science, not newspaper back-and-forths that just looks like spin-doctoring by both sides to all sides.

I've stated a few positions in my original post, and it seems to me the fastest, cleanest way to drive a stake through their hearts is for someone to dazzle us with that body of climate science that proves the question settled. If it's true, then it's not too much to ask.

Now failure to accommodate me isn't proof that my post 1 declarations are right. But I was kinda hoping the scientifically superior liberal end of the discussion could put me in my place quickly and cleanly the way a scientifically settled matter should.

It's a big indulgence I'm asking and I don't expect it to surface in any particular frame of time. Before the election might be helpful...especially to any swing voters reading this.

 

[konradv]

I can't help but think you're just rehashing denialist talking points and not adding anything new to the debate. Talking about the "pause" and mentioning the "science is settled" controversy, only serves to points out your apparent bises. If it's supposed to be about the science and correct interpretation, there should be no need to bring slanted code words into the discussion. It's not good enough to appear even-handed, you need to bring some substance to the table.

As I said, "the burden of proof is upon you." Which in fact it kinda is, if you'll think about it.

If my biases are showing, I'm inviting anyone who can to expose their vice. Feeble 'talking points' surely won't obscure the revelation of settled science. If by "denier" you mean to imply someone who doesn't understand scientific conclusions and cannot judge them on scientific merits, then I think I (and others here) can disprove that accusation.

I am doing more than mentioning "science is settled." I'm directly calling it out. I'm soliciting proof of this assertion. Socrates didn't have to "bring anything to the table" to get his job done. I won't waive my right to cite points of fact at some point, but the bottom line is I'm hoping for a discussion of science, not newspaper back-and-forths that just looks like spin-doctoring by both sides to all sides.

I've stated a few positions in my original post, and it seems to me the fastest, cleanest way to drive a stake through their hearts is for someone to dazzle us with that body of climate science that proves the question settled. If it's true, then it's not too much to ask.

Now failure to accommodate me isn't proof that my post 1 declarations are right. But I was kinda hoping the scientifically superior liberal end of the discussion could put me in my place quickly and cleanly the way a scientifically settled matter should.

It's a big indulgence I'm asking and I don't expect it to surface in any particular frame of time. Before the election might be helpful...especially to any swing voters reading this.

I guess what i'm saying is that you're only talking about the controversy. Not much of what you're saying is touching on the actual science. I gave you the basic logic of why I believe, but you haven't even addressed it. If you object to "denier", quit acting like one and confront the actual theory, science and logic behind the controversy. If there's spin doctoring going on, you're guilty, IMO. The points you discussed in the OP were in reference to the controversy, NOT the science.