Not just temperture

[Si modo]

Ah Doodee..... Perhaps you would care to give us your interpretation of what falsification means in science. The more intelligent here could use a good laugh.

YOU'RE asking? LMAO.

K. Gonna look for the two threads of which I am aware off hand, of your demonstration of utter cluelessness about the concept of falsification.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Ah Doodee..... Perhaps you would care to give us your interpretation of what falsification means in science. The more intelligent here could use a good laugh.

Because you claim to be intelligent now?
I suppose that is slightly less ludicrous than you claiming to understand science.
But only slightly.
You are a fraud. The acidification is happening because of people just like YOU who for decades ran a dirty mill but now want to have big gubmin' come in and tax the working class to clean it all up so you and your grandkids can enjoy what YOU polluted.

If a little old retired schoolteacher were to speak about spending her savings that had been intended for a trip to Bermuda on making her home carbon neutral then I could grant her a modicum of respect for acting according to her principles. But you polluted to gain a heap of money and now, having spent a trivial portion of that money to "go green" want to force everyone to listen to your blather about the dangers of what YOU did for decades.
Hypocrite.

 

[Old Rocks]

NASA/NOAA/GISS = GIGO

American Thinker on CRU, GISS, and Climategate Watts Up With That?

Anthony Watts. No degree in climatology, nor in any other science that I can find.


Anthony Watts - SourceWatch

Background and education
Watts grew up around Cincinnati, Ohio and reportedly attended Purdue University[1], studying Electrical Engineering and Meteorology.[2]. Watts's "About" page mentions neither his Purdue attendance nor whether he graduated. [3]. Watts has not been willing to say whether he graduated.[4]

"Anthony began his broadcasting career, in 1978 in Lafayette, Indiana."[5]


Credentials

Credentials held
Watts holds an American Meteorological Society Seal of Approval (a discontinued credential that does not require a bachelor's or higher degree in atmospheric science or meteorology from an accredited college/university)[6] with a status of "retired".[7]


Credentials not held
Some online lists incorrectly refer to Watts as "AMS Certified"[8], but this is incorrect; the American Meteorological Society reserves its "AMS Certified" designation for its Certified Broadcast Meteorologists and Certified Consulting Meteorologists[9], and Watts posesses neither certification.[10],[11]

Watts has posted much idiocy that is completely off the wall a number of times. A proven liar.

"Leipzig Declaration"
Anthony Watts is listed as a signatory on the "Leipzig Declaration", which said "there does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide. In fact, most climate specialists now agree that actual observations from both weather satellites and balloon-borne radiosondes show no current warming whatsoever."

Speaking
Watts was a speaker at the International Conference on Climate Change (2009) organized by the Heartland Institute think tank. [12] Watts is also listed as a speaker for the Heartland Institute's June 2009 Third International Conference on Climate Change.[13]

 

[Old Rocks]

The whole article is in line with the present wingnuts attempt to delegitimize science. The American Thinker is primarily noted for it's lack of thought, and parroting Republican, and wingnut talking points. Unfortunetely for the nation, at present, they are one and the same.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ah Doodee..... Perhaps you would care to give us your interpretation of what falsification means in science. The more intelligent here could use a good laugh.

YOU'RE asking? LMAO.

K. Gonna look for the two threads of which I am aware off hand, of your demonstration of utter cluelessness about the concept of falsification.

Here you go, Si. Have at it. Dumbass.

Falsifiability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment. The term "testability" is related but more specific; it means that an assertion can be falsified through experimentation alone.

For example, "all men are mortal" is unfalsifiable, since no finite amount of observation could ever demonstrate its falsehood: that one or more men can live forever. "All men are immortal," by contrast, is falsifiable, by the presentation of just one dead man. Not all statements that are falsifiable in principle are falsifiable in practice. For example, "it will be raining here in one million years" is theoretically falsifiable, but not practically so.

Falsifiability is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science. The concept was made popular by Karl Popper, who, in his philosophical analysis of the scientific method, concluded that a hypothesis, proposition, or theory is "scientific" only if it is falsifiable. Popper however stressed that unfalsifiable statements are still important in science, and are often implied by falsifiable theories. For example, while "all men are mortal" is unfalsifiable, it is a logical consequence of the falsifiable theory that "every man dies before he reaches the age of 150 years". Similarly, the ancient metaphysical and unfalsifiable idea of the existence of atoms has led to corresponding falsifiable modern theories.

Popper invented the notion of metaphysical research programs to name such ideas. In contrast to positivism, which held that statements are senseless if they cannot be verified or falsified, Popper claimed that falsifiability is merely a special case of the more general notion of criticizability, even though he admitted that refutation is one of the most effective methods by which theories can be criticized.

 

[Old Rocks]

LMAO! Globel warming is 'not just temperature'.

The desperation is beyond cringeworthy. It's hysterical.

What is hysterical is that you claim to be working in real science and have yet to present any arguement to support your case.

 

[Oddball]

I suppose the memo about all of the recently exposed fraudulence within the warmist fundie orthodoxy didn't get to you yet.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment.

What observation or experiment are you suggesting that would refute global warming?
Is that an unfair question to ask someone with your negligible knowledge of science?

 

[Oddball]

Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment.

Uh-huh....Therefore, by extension, if you cannot prove that all other plausible explanations (or combinations thereof) are wrong, you cannot claim that you are right.

 

[Old Rocks]

Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment.

What observation or experiment are you suggesting that would refute global warming?
Is that an unfair question to ask someone with your negligible knowledge of science?

If we saw the glaciers and ice caps adding ice every year for ten years, that would pretty well show that the globe was not warming. Were we to see the permafrost that has melted, refreeze, and stay frozen for an equal length of time, that too would be evidence that the globe is not warming.

What we are seeing is more ice gone every year at an accelerating rate. More of the permafrost melting and increasingly releasing vast amounts of both CO2 and CH4 into the atmosphere.

 

[Old Rocks]

Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment.

Uh-huh....Therefore, by extension, if you cannot prove that all other plausible explanations (or combinations thereof) are wrong, you cannot claim that you are right.

Precisely the response that I expected of you.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment.

What observation or experiment are you suggesting that would refute global warming?
Is that an unfair question to ask someone with your negligible knowledge of science?

If we saw the glaciers and ice caps adding ice every year for ten years, that would pretty well show that the globe was not warming. Were we to see the permafrost that has melted, refreeze, and stay frozen for an equal length of time, that too would be evidence that the globe is not warming.

What we are seeing is more ice gone every year at an accelerating rate. More of the permafrost melting and increasingly releasing vast amounts of both CO2 and CH4 into the atmosphere.

So in other words until the recovery of the Arctic ice goes on for ten years (nine more plus 2009, since 2007-2008 seems at this point to be a nadir, or at least a local minima) you will still continue to rant about how the Earth is warming. And about how we need to spend everything on stopping it.
Wait it's not we, because you made your money from polluting and now want other to clean it up for you. At their cost.
Now I understand Your fascination with warming.

That's pretty expensive science, and not necessarily true. We could have cooling for 10 or even 20 years and still be really hot a few years after that. We could have more ice two of every three years for the next thirty thousand years and not meet your criteria for debunking GoreBull warming.
Even worse, you listen to all the Warming pundits without using the least bit of skepticism, without asking if they are manipulating the data they use to produce a fraudulent result. Rather like the cigarette companies did about cancer in the sixties. Green technology is big money and it does make sense that they could falsify the data. Sure, British Petroleum has a vested interest in not paying to clean up their smoke stacks, but that is precisely what Mike Stickney is researching for British Petroleum, so I am less apt to believe they are falsifying data which disputes the warmers claims.

 

[Oddball]

Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment.

Uh-huh....Therefore, by extension, if you cannot prove that all other plausible explanations (or combinations thereof) are wrong, you cannot claim that you are right.

Precisely the response that I expected of you.

Also, the correct response.

But you never were too keen on basic logic.

 

[elvis]

Uh-huh....Therefore, by extension, if you cannot prove that all other plausible explanations (or combinations thereof) are wrong, you cannot claim that you are right.

Precisely the response that I expected of you.

Also, the correct response.

But you never were too keen on basic logic.

Oh his logic works fine. It goes like this:

P.) Al Whore is always correct.

P.) Al Whore says there is global warming and it's man-made.

C.) Therefore, there is global warming and it's man-made.

 

[Old Rocks]

What observation or experiment are you suggesting that would refute global warming?
Is that an unfair question to ask someone with your negligible knowledge of science?

If we saw the glaciers and ice caps adding ice every year for ten years, that would pretty well show that the globe was not warming. Were we to see the permafrost that has melted, refreeze, and stay frozen for an equal length of time, that too would be evidence that the globe is not warming.

What we are seeing is more ice gone every year at an accelerating rate. More of the permafrost melting and increasingly releasing vast amounts of both CO2 and CH4 into the atmosphere.

So in other words until the recovery of the Arctic ice goes on for ten years (nine more plus 2009, since 2007-2008 seems at this point to be a nadir, or at least a local minima) you will still continue to rant about how the Earth is warming. And about how we need to spend everything on stopping it.
Wait it's not we, because you made your money from polluting and now want other to clean it up for you. At their cost.
Now I understand Your fascination with warming.

That's pretty expensive science, and not necessarily true. We could have cooling for 10 or even 20 years and still be really hot a few years after that. We could have more ice two of every three years for the next thirty thousand years and not meet your criteria for debunking GoreBull warming.
Even worse, you listen to all the Warming pundits without using the least bit of skepticism, without asking if they are manipulating the data they use to produce a fraudulent result. Rather like the cigarette companies did about cancer in the sixties. Green technology is big money and it does make sense that they could falsify the data. Sure, British Petroleum has a vested interest in not paying to clean up their smoke stacks, but that is precisely what Mike Stickney is researching for British Petroleum, so I am less apt to believe they are falsifying data which disputes the warmers claims.

Dumb. The volume of the ice has declined in 2007, 2008, and 2009. It will decline further in 2010. Care to predict the opposite?

The very 'scientists', Sietz, Singer and Lindzen that testified to those lies concerning the harmlessness of cigarettes are the same people now putting out the lies concerning globol warming. It is not the Scientific Societies, National Acandemies of Science, or the major Universities that are hiring the same people that ran the campaign of doubt against the findings of the doctors on the connection, it is the energy companies trying to protect their multi-trillion dollar industry.

 

[Si modo]

LMAO! Globel warming is 'not just temperature'.

The desperation is beyond cringeworthy. It's hysterical.

What is hysterical is that you claim to be working in real science and have yet to present any arguement to support your case.

What case? That I am a scientist and have worked in it for over 20 years, of which over ten years are doing basic research in science?

Or my case that the state of the science does not support any definitive claim about the significance and magnitude of anthropogenic CO2 on climate change?

You are out of your league.

 

[elvis]

LMAO! Globel warming is 'not just temperature'.

The desperation is beyond cringeworthy. It's hysterical.

What is hysterical is that you claim to be working in real science and have yet to present any arguement to support your case.

and you still can't spell, you dumbfuck.

 

[Old Rocks]

LMAO! Globel warming is 'not just temperature'.

The desperation is beyond cringeworthy. It's hysterical.

What is hysterical is that you claim to be working in real science and have yet to present any arguement to support your case.

What case? That I am a scientist and have worked in it for over 20 years, of which over ten years are doing basic research in science?

Or my case that the state of the science does not support any definitive claim about the significance and magnitude of anthropogenic CO2 on climate change?

You are out of your league.

Really?

I can claim to be Napoleon on the net.

If you are a scientist, then present good scientific evidence that the significance and magnitude of the CO2 does not represent a threat.

We already know that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has varied between 180 and 300 ppm for the last 2 million years. And that the differance of 100 ppm was the differance between ice bound continents and interglacial periods.

We know what happens when the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere declines significantly from the geological record. We get a frozen ocean almost to the equator.

So now we have added almost 100 ppm of CO2, and 1 ppm of CH4, the latter being very significant, and you state that it makes no differance? And also claim to be a scientist? Wow!!!

I don't know what league you are playing in, sister, but it is very definately bush league.

 

[Si modo]

What is hysterical is that you claim to be working in real science and have yet to present any arguement to support your case.

What case? That I am a scientist and have worked in it for over 20 years, of which over ten years are doing basic research in science?

Or my case that the state of the science does not support any definitive claim about the significance and magnitude of anthropogenic CO2 on climate change?

You are out of your league.

Really?

I can claim to be Napoleon on the net.

If you are a scientist, then present good scientific evidence that the significance and magnitude of the CO2 does not represent a threat.

...

As a scientist (or even anyone with an ounce of ability to apply critical thought), I know that I cannot prove a negative. I would wonder why you would ask, but as I've already stated, you are out of your league.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Dumb. The volume of the ice has declined in 2007, 2008, and 2009. It will decline further in 2010. Care to predict the opposite?

2009 had more ice than 2008 and the only way you, or the warmers can make it look like less it to compare the ice in 2009 to 2006 or earlier.

Here's some news - take a full ice cube tray out of the freezer, let it warm to room temperature, put the tray back in, wait one minute and look at the tray. What do you know - there is less ice than before you took the tray from the freezer in the first place. By your logic that would be proof the freezer is no longer working. A scientist would dismiss your claim.

Your "falsification" is an unworkable criteria - ten years of more ice and spend heavily the whole time before the theory has been proven. That's a recipe for handing the keys to the con artists. No thanks. Finish the falsification test first, then, after the ten years YOU specified, push for economic sanctions.