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

[Grumblenuts]

Or if that only 0.22C to 0.5C was from a 120 ppm of incremental atmospheric CO2 that would be game over.

No, that would just be more of your

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The sun. Why does the ocean and atmosphere cool when the northern hemisphere is glaciating? The sun is shining then too,

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well, I deny being a denier so call me a denier again, if you feel so strongly that you must, but I was actually agreeing with you here:

He's not very bright.

 

[ding]

No, that would just be more of your

Adding feedback and calling it the "GHG" effect is not only dishonest but based only upon flawed computer modeling.

 

[Dagosa]

Well, I deny being a denier so call me a denier again, if you feel so strongly that you must, but I was actually agreeing with you here:

The exception I make is that science theories are either true or false, or even demonstrated false or true . Theories are neither true or false in absolute terms. They are working explanations subject to revision as new information is found. We still use Newtonian physics because its still meaningful . It’s not suddenly false in the presence of the atom.
I’d be interested to know under what conditions you feel AGW is demonstrated as false.

 

[ding]

The exception I make is that science theories are either true or false, or even demonstrated false or true . Theories are neither true or false in absolute terms. They are working explanations subject to revision as new information is found. We still use Newtonian physics because its still meaningful . It’s not suddenly false in the presence of the atom.
I’d be interested to know under what conditions you feel AGW is demonstrated as false.

Theories built upon bogus assumptions like all warming since 1900 is due to changes in atmospheric CO2 are complete and utter bullshit.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The exception I make is that science theories are either true or false, or even demonstrated false or true . Theories are neither true or false in absolute terms. They are working explanations subject to revision as new information is found. We still use Newtonian physics because its still meaningful . It’s not suddenly false in the presence of the atom.

Completely agree. Nature abhors absolutes.

I’d be interested to know under what conditions you feel AGW is demonstrated as false.

Has been? None, as I indicated previously. Karl Popper wasn't just whistling Dixie though.

 

[Dagosa]

Completely agree. Nature abhors absolutes.

Has been? None, as I indicated previously. Karl Popper wasn't just whistling Dixie though.

He’s not even a working scientist…his distain for the scientific method which has proven the most accurate method of developing meaningful knowledge is totally unsubstantiated. He is a commentator not a scientist. Worthwhile criticism is welcome as long as it’s accompanied by justifiable research……he does none of that. He’s NOT a working scientist nor has he ever pretended to be. He’s a philosopher/commentator and NOT a practicing researcher. I believe you misinterpret his opinions.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Karl Popper is another bullshit artist. He’s not even a working scientist…his distain for the scientific method which has proven the most accurate method of developing meaningful knowledge is totally unsubstantiated. He is a commentator not a scientist. The scientific method is a collaboration, consensus and agreement of the ideas developed at all related institutions where working scientists do research. Worthwhile criticism is welcome as long as it’s accompanied by justifiable research……he does none of that. He’s NOT a working scientist nor has he ever pretended to be. He’s a philosopher/commentator and NOT a practicing researcher.

Actually Popper's been dead since 1994.

Karl Popper - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Dagosa]

Actually Popper's been dead since 1994.

Karl Popper - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Exactly…….he could have changed his views a dozen times since. I don’t believe even he would take himself seriously as a worthwhile commentator on the scientific method. He may not even know what it is.

 

[EMH]

Theories built upon bogus assumptions like all warming since 1900 is due to changes in atmospheric CO2 are complete and utter bullshit.

as is all claims that ocean currents cause climate change.

 

[EMH]

the scientific method

Theory - adding Co2 to atmosphere causes warming

DATA - nope

Scientific Method = THEORY REJECTED

 

[ding]

as is all claims that ocean currents cause climate change.

There's tons of physical evidence provided in peer reviewed scientific papers that prove that changing ocean currents cause abrupt climate change.

YOU ARE A SUBVERSIVE

 

[ding]

Theory - adding Co2 to atmosphere causes warming

DATA - nope

Scientific Method = THEORY REJECTED

YOU ARE A SUBVERSIVE

 

[EMH]

There's tons of physical evidence provided in peer reviewed scientific papers that prove that changing ocean currents cause abrupt climate change.

YOU ARE A SUBVERSIVE

LOL!!!

And here he is once again saying he is a "skeptic" while pushing taxpayer funded FUDGED FRAUD completely obliterated by the truth that GREENLAND FROZE WHILE NORTH AMERICA THAWED....

 

[ding]

LOL!!!

And here he is once again saying he is a "skeptic" while pushing taxpayer funded FUDGED FRAUD completely obliterated by the truth that GREENLAND FROZE WHILE NORTH AMERICA THAWED....

YOU ARE A SUBVERSIVE

 

[Dagosa]

Theory - adding Co2 to atmosphere causes warming

DATA - nope

Scientific Method = THEORY REJECTED

You can’t even state the theory you reject correctly.
I give you credit for one thing; you spell “data” correctly.

 

[ding]

You can’t even state the theory you reject correctly.
I give you credit for one thing; you spell “data” correctly.

That's because he's a subversive trying to make opponents of AGW look bad.

 

[EMH]

You can’t even state the theory you reject correctly.
I give you credit for one thing; you spell “data” correctly.

The truth of the highly correlated satellite and balloon data.

Co2 went up.

Atmospheric temps did NOT.

THEORY REJECTED

 

[EMH]

That's because he's a subversive trying to make opponents of AGW look bad.

"opponents of AGW" are not funded by the Co2 FRAUD, YOU ARE.