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

[mamooth]

The data is there according to NASA

Yet nobody seems capable of actually finding it.

Data also shows a cooling trend for most of this century.

Again, the larger point is that with so much discrepancy it is dangerous and way wrong to enact such stifling policies so as to hurt people in the name of allegedly helping them.

Except energy prices aren't rising, so nobody is getting hurt. Quite the opposite. In the 3rd world, decentralized renewables are cheaper than trying to build a grid.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The data is there according to NASA

Yet nobody seems capable of actually finding it.

Data also shows a cooling trend for most of this century.

Again, the larger point is that with so much discrepancy it is dangerous and way wrong to enact such stifling policies so as to hurt people in the name of allegedly helping them.

Except energy prices aren't rising, so nobody is getting hurt. Quite the opposite. In the 3rd world, decentralized renewables are cheaper than trying to build a grid.

Energy prices are still up and the effect that has had on the global economy has hurt third world people the most.
The cooling trend is over the past fifteen years and the hockey stick has been determined to have been fudged.
Why alarmist extremists continue to push the propaganda and stifle the global economy -- hurting themselves as well -- is beyond me. Partisan political loyalty should not trump good judgment.

 

[mamooth]

Energy prices are still up and the effect that has had on the global economy has hurt third world people the most.

I understand that's your fantasy, and you're sticking with it. Just don't expect anyone else to buy such nonsense.

The cooling trend is over the past fifteen years and the hockey stick has been determined to have been fudged.

That's grade-A conspiracy cult nuttery. Upon hearing it, it marks the speaker as being a hopelessly brainwashed cult parrot, immune to reason. Hence, the reasonable response is to smile, twirl a finger around the ear and walk away.

 

[RedTeamTex]

So...we continue to see the liberal intellect is as reasoned (and classy) as ever!

One thing I know about cults: somebody gets all the money and all the women.

If I'm in a cult, it's a very poorly run one.

However, since I did declare this topic is anthropological in scope--we'll give the thought some attention.

If we take def. 3 of "cult" in my google search--(which best conforms to my lack other's money and zealous feminine attention: )

a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing;

then by using the term we're arguing for "misplaced" or "excessive" faith in one or more of our preferred conclusions.

So let's remind our enlightened and logically, scientifically inclided participants of some other religious terms: atheist versus agnostic. One claims knowledge of a negative, the other simply admits not knowing one way or the other.

Perhaps it's possible to have a cult of "agw" atheists as easily as we might perceive a cult of "agw" enthusiasts. But I don't think cultish thinking can be ascribed to the agnostic.

An agnostic can still be skeptical of a position not proven or otherwise unconvincingly supported. In fact, science relies on such skepticism to operate. And so I imagine agnostics can get irked by being labeled something they're not.

(Those who fail to observe this distinction aren't doing "Clean Debate" any favors, are they?)

***

It's the agnostic assertion of the OP not that severe 'agw' is disproven...only that it's a long way from being proven or supported to a degree where wisdom demands billions if not trillions of dollars of wealth redistribution.

As we saw with the Global Cooling phenomenon, an idea can capture the imagination and gain popular support, even from scientists, without necessarily being all that well founded. Referring back to the original article retracted by Mr. Gwynne: Newsweek's 'Global Cooling' Article From April 28, 1975 he mentions:

"Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."

Now, let's ask the question:
What are the key questions?

If we have two reasonable pairs of posits from two opposing theories by climate science over the decades:

"pollution particles reflect light away from the earth"
"greater volumes of pollution particles are entering the atmosphere"

and

"CO2 absorbs radiation increasing heat"
"greater volumes of CO2 are entering the atmosphere"

Does human science NOW understand enough elements of atmospheric heat exchanges and their relationship to one another to judge causality of temperature fluxuations?

Once AGAIN, I'm inviting those who believe the answer is yes to step up to the plate and justify their un-agnostic "yes"...and give us their calculations supporting argument 1), rather than continue to fail finding new crevices in so-called "clean debate" to stall and misdirect.

Still waiting....

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Energy prices are still up and the effect that has had on the global economy has hurt third world people the most.

I understand that's your fantasy, and you're sticking with it. Just don't expect anyone else to buy such nonsense.

The cooling trend is over the past fifteen years and the hockey stick has been determined to have been fudged.

That's grade-A conspiracy cult nuttery. Upon hearing it, it marks the speaker as being a hopelessly brainwashed cult parrot, immune to reason. Hence, the reasonable response is to smile, twirl a finger around the ear and walk away.

Judith Curry is not a conspiracy nut. She just doesn't doesn't toe the grant-funded AGW line and relies more on actual science and evidence. How profound.
I suppose it's classier (especially in the CDZ) that you walk away in defeat -- even with a disparaging gesture -- rather than stick around and continue to disparage like a poor sport.

 

[mamooth]

Curry constantly peddles the nutty conspiracy theory about how the data is supposedly faked, and that makes her a raging conspiracy nut.

That's all losers can do, peddle conspiracy theories. It's good to be on the rational side. To "win", we merely have to point at reality.

 

[mamooth]

Does human science NOW understand enough elements of atmospheric heat exchanges and their relationship to one another to judge causality of temperature fluxuations?

Yes.

Once AGAIN, I'm inviting those who believe the answer is yes to step up to the plate and justify their un-agnostic "yes"...and give us their calculations supporting argument.

Fifth Assessment Report - Climate Change 2013

There are many sources used in that doc. Here are a couple of them.

Global warming in the twenty-first century: An alternative scenario

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5953/716

And no, there's no quick and dirty calculation to show what you demand be shown in a short calculation, so that red herring of yours is invalid. You'll have to invent a new way to deflect.

 

[RedTeamTex]

Does human science NOW understand enough elements of atmospheric heat exchanges and their relationship to one another to judge causality of temperature fluxuations?

Yes.

Once AGAIN, I'm inviting those who believe the answer is yes to step up to the plate and justify their un-agnostic "yes"...and give us their calculations supporting argument.

Fifth Assessment Report - Climate Change 2013

There are many sources used in that doc. Here are a couple of them.

Global warming in the twenty-first century: An alternative scenario

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5953/716

And no, there's no quick and dirty calculation to show what you demand be shown in a short calculation, so that red herring of yours is invalid. You'll have to invent a new way to deflect.

Now that's an engaging graph! I can't wait to give it some attention. Thank you for the citations.

So Mamooth, just to clarify your last point since you directly championed Argument 1: ("The Science is [sufficiently] settled, and we should act [with various environmental policy prescriptions to combat AGW.]")

As we've previously discussed, a scientifically preferable theory is the simplest explanation available consistent with the sum of evidence, and no scientific theory is to be discarded merely because it hasn't yet been positively proven.

However, you said there's no quick and dirty calculation to directly support Argument 1. (For the record, I'll take a slow one if it enjoys a higher degree of cleanliness.) Unless by that you mean there's no calculation that enjoys even a moderate level of confidence like the last column of your graph suggests? It's not my intention to put words in your mouth, so please feel free to clarify.

But without such a calculation, how do you intend to argue for the conclusion "the science is [sufficienty] settled, and we should act"? If Professor Cuffey is to be believed, that's exactly the state of urgency that exists based on Science. If that's the case, then what I'm asking for is not a red herring.

Now establishing that "the science is sufficiently settled" on AGW is no small request, and it deserves some latitude. I REALLY think some Liberal brains should be helping out Mamooth. I intend to address the best possible synthesis of Argument 1 that the Left side of the argument can possibly muster. If the Libs concede there's no method of calculating AGW that enjoys real scientific consensus, then the conclusion advocating policy prescriptions might be arrived at introducing some Risk Aversion calculation as well? It's still possible to thread the argument 1) needle that way.

 

[konradv]

Judith Curry is not a conspiracy nut. She just doesn't doesn't toe the grant-funded AGW line and relies more on actual science and evidence. How profound.
I suppose it's classier (especially in the CDZ) that you walk away in defeat -- even with a disparaging gesture -- rather than stick around and continue to disparage like a poor sport.

Grant-funding does not compare favorably to the funding of denialist spokesmouths by the energy companies. Grant-funded scientists actually have to do experiments and publish papers to earn their salaries. On the other hand company-funded "scientists" don't have to do any actual work. They just throw doubt on real scientists' work at 10X the salary. So if you were just "doing it for the money", which side would you choose?

 

[midcan5]

Having commuted by bicycle now for over 27 years I don't need any proof weather is changing - I feel it. As for deniers, everything that challenges the status quo is denied. Smoking etc etc etc. The frame for the denier is a simple one of belief rather than consideration. Belief is not reality but does it matter in so many areas?

Global Warming Made simple: <strong>Final thoughts on global warming</strong> - News - The Sudbury Town Crier - Sudbury, MA

Agnotology is an interesting field of study. 'Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming' Naomi Oreskes, Erik M. M. Conway

Also see here and see how public opinion is created. Unfortunately it is behind a paywall but Robert Paul Wolff sums it up. The Philosopher's Stone: A STROLL DOWN MEMORY LANE

 

[Liminal]

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.

I guess it's just unfortunate that you never learned to understand the importance of scientific evidence in substantiating a theory. Did you just skip that semester or what?

 

[Liminal]

Does human science NOW understand enough elements of atmospheric heat exchanges and their relationship to one another to judge causality of temperature fluxuations?

Yes.

Once AGAIN, I'm inviting those who believe the answer is yes to step up to the plate and justify their un-agnostic "yes"...and give us their calculations supporting argument.

Fifth Assessment Report - Climate Change 2013

There are many sources used in that doc. Here are a couple of them.

Global warming in the twenty-first century: An alternative scenario

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5953/716

And no, there's no quick and dirty calculation to show what you demand be shown in a short calculation, so that red herring of yours is invalid. You'll have to invent a new way to deflect.

Now that's an engaging graph! I can't wait to give it some attention. Thank you for the citations.

So Mamooth, just to clarify your last point since you directly championed Argument 1: ("The Science is [sufficiently] settled, and we should act [with various environmental policy prescriptions to combat AGW.]")

As we've previously discussed, a scientifically preferable theory is the simplest explanation available consistent with the sum of evidence, and no scientific theory is to be discarded merely because it hasn't yet been positively proven.

However, you said there's no quick and dirty calculation to directly support Argument 1. (For the record, I'll take a slow one if it enjoys a higher degree of cleanliness.) Unless by that you mean there's no calculation that enjoys even a moderate level of confidence like the last column of your graph suggests? It's not my intention to put words in your mouth, so please feel free to clarify.

But without such a calculation, how do you intend to argue for the conclusion "the science is [sufficienty] settled, and we should act"? If Professor Cuffey is to be believed, that's exactly the state of urgency that exists based on Science. If that's the case, then what I'm asking for is not a red herring.

Now establishing that "the science is sufficiently settled" on AGW is no small request, and it deserves some latitude. I REALLY think some Liberal brains should be helping out Mamooth. I intend to address the best possible synthesis of Argument 1 that the Left side of the argument can possibly muster. If the Libs concede there's no method of calculating AGW that enjoys real scientific consensus, then the conclusion advocating policy prescriptions might be arrived at introducing some Risk Aversion calculation as well? It's still possible to thread the argument 1) needle that way.

You use a whole lot of words to say basically jack shit.

 

[longknife]

Almost All US Temperature Data Used In Global Warming Models Is Estimated or Altered



This doesn't surprise me. Does it you? I also know we will now see chart after chart (fudged perhaps?) disclaiming this article.



I really hate to say this but, the earth's weather patterns are so darned complex and complicated that I wonder if anyone understands them.



So, just who are we to believe.



The full story is @ Almost All US Temperature Data Used In Global Warming Models Is Estimated or Altered

 

[Liminal]

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.

Uh huh, but for some reason you seem to believe that your reasoning is based on objective standards rather than simply rationalizing your own emotions and ill considered conclusions.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Judith Curry is not a conspiracy nut. She just doesn't doesn't toe the grant-funded AGW line and relies more on actual science and evidence. How profound.
I suppose it's classier (especially in the CDZ) that you walk away in defeat -- even with a disparaging gesture -- rather than stick around and continue to disparage like a poor sport.

Grant-funding does not compare favorably to the funding of denialist spokesmouths by the energy companies. Grant-funded scientists actually have to do experiments and publish papers to earn their salaries. On the other hand company-funded "scientists" don't have to do any actual work. They just throw doubt on real scientists' work at 10X the salary. So if you were just "doing it for the money", which side would you choose?

I would choose neither and I made no such assertion that I would choose either. Curry, at al, are not funded by energy companies. AGW alarmists are all funded by gov money.

 

[mamooth]

Almost All US Temperature Data Used In Global Warming Models Is Estimated or Altered

Damn near all data used everywhere is estimated or altered.

Consistent people don't single out climate science to scream at for that reason. Conspiracy theorists do.

 

[mamooth]

Unless by that you mean there's no calculation that enjoys even a moderate level of confidence like the last column of your graph suggests?

If you want to predict the future, you have to use some kind of model. And in the past, the models have very good at predicting the future. Since the 1970s, the predictions have gotten the warming right, and the correct rate of warming. As the models have done well in the past, there's high confidence for them to predict the future.

In contrast, most deniers have been predicting an oncoming ice age for the past couple decades. Big fail.

Now, many deniers pretend the models were bad, but since they're just making stuff up, nobody pays attention to them. The scientists aren't fooled by denier fables, so the scientists know how good the models have been.

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

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.

I was going to write a reply, but there is no point, seeing as how it would look like I just copied yours.

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

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.

even if you favor the unfounded claims of climate change deniers rather than all the hard scientific evidence that supports the theory of global warming, this video poses a very convincing argument that even if you are skeptical, we should still take measured to prepare.

 

[RedTeamTex]

However, you said there's no quick and dirty calculation to directly support Argument 1. (For the record, I'll take a slow one if it enjoys a higher degree of cleanliness.) Unless by that you mean there's no calculation that enjoys even a moderate level of confidence like the last column of your graph suggests? It's not my intention to put words in your mouth, so please feel free to clarify.

But without such a calculation, how do you intend to argue for the conclusion "the science is [sufficienty] settled, and we should act"? If Professor Cuffey is to be believed, that's exactly the state of urgency that exists based on Science. If that's the case, then what I'm asking for is not a red herring.

Now establishing that "the science is sufficiently settled" on AGW is no small request, and it deserves some latitude. I REALLY think some Liberal brains should be helping out Mamooth. I intend to address the best possible synthesis of Argument 1 that the Left side of the argument can possibly muster. If the Libs concede there's no method of calculating AGW that enjoys real scientific consensus, then the conclusion advocating policy prescriptions might be arrived at introducing some Risk Aversion calculation as well? It's still possible to thread the argument 1) needle that way.

I hope all your logically valid Argument 1 examples are coming along nicely! I'm very eager to see them and grateful for the learning experience.

If you want to predict the future, you have to use some kind of model. And in the past, the models have very good at predicting the future. Since the 1970s, the predictions have gotten the warming right, and the correct rate of warming. As the models have done well in the past, there's high confidence for them to predict the future.

In contrast, most deniers have been predicting an oncoming ice age for the past couple decades. Big fail.

Now, many deniers pretend the models were bad, but since they're just making stuff up, nobody pays attention to them. The scientists aren't fooled by denier fables, so the scientists know how good the models have been.

I'm not sure your assertion "most deniers have been predicting an oncoming ice age for the past couple of decades" is accurate. Smearing pejorative aside, I'd need some kind of citation for that.

M, you've declared a couple of times that warming projections have been good at predicting the future. This recent article seem to indicate a disparity between ICPP projections and actual temperature readings:

How reliable are the climate models?

How do you factually refute the numbers here (without resorting to name calling?)