GFM7175
Manners, manners young strigiform.
It is an old argument that AGW is not falsifiable. Let me put up a few things that might undo it:
Okay, let's see if we can undo 'climate change'...
No, we are undoing a misconception.
1) Show that CO2 does not act as a greenhouse gas
Attempted shift of the burden of proof. YOU are the one making the claim that it DOES act as a greenhouse gas. YOU need to show that it DOES act as one.
First, there are no proofs in the natural sciences. Second: do you understand the concept of falsification? If I put forth a hypothesis in the natural sciences, I can only gather evidence that does or does not support my hypothesis. Without the possibility of proof, I cannot prove it is true. However, I CAN logically prove it false. For example, suppose I hypothesize that all swans are white. I can count white swans all day and the more white swans I find, the more likely is my hypothesis to be correct. But if I come across a single black swan, my hypothesis is done for because I said "ALL swans are white". Of course, I might just coincidentally count a very large number of white swans and never run into a black one and this might be enough evidence that I and my co-researchers become convinced that the hypothesis is correct.
In pseudoscience, however, you will frequently see hypotheses that are simply not falsifiable. Anything that makes use of the supernatural: claims that a certain god exists or that any god exists or claims that some event was caused by a supernatural entity is not testable because the supernatural by definition, cannot be tested by scientific methods. Hypotheses such as the existence of the Loch Ness monster, the Abominable Snow Man, Bigfoot, alien visitors cannot be falsified and so are not valid hypotheses.
There has long been an argument that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) was not falsifiable. My list was simply a dozen ways in which it COULD be falsified. They are the foundations of the theory. Take any of them away and the theory collapses.
And, of course, every one of them HAS been thoroughly tested.
CO2 absorbs infrared radiation in several discrete bands. That is all that is required to determine that it is a greenhouse gas. However, further testing has definitively shown that it produces increased warming from exposure to infrared radiation, another demonstration of its satisfaction of the definition of a greenhouse gas. Look up the absorption spectrum of CO2.
2) Show that CO2 levels are not increasing
See above. YOU are claiming that they are increasing. YOU need to show that they ARE increasing...
Several organizations have been collecting CO2 level data since the 1950s. They all show levels steadily increasing. Look up the Keeling Curve.
3) Show that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is not of human origin
See above. YOU are claiming that it IS of human origin. YOU need to show that it actually IS...
Isotopic analysis of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere has repeatedly shown that 131 ppm of the current 411 ppm originates with the combustion of fossil fuels. Additionally, calculations based on accurate estimates of the amount of fossil fuel burned since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution closely match the results of isotopic analysis. Virtually every molecule of CO2 above the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm came from the combustion of fossil fuels and is thus of human origin.
You're new to these arguments, aren't you.
4) Repeat 1-3 concerning methane
See above. You seem to want to shift the burden of proof... It is YOU making the positive claims. YOU need to show that your claims are true.
See above for methods by which excess CO2 was identified.
5) Show that humans are not responsible for deforestation
6) Show that deforestation has had no effect on CO2 levels in the atmosphere
7) Show that the planet is not warming
8) Show that something other than the greenhouse effect is responsible for the observed warming
9) Show that the planet will soon cease to warm and begin cooling off
10) Show that all the world's climate scientists are involved in a massive conspiracy to falsify all the evidence supporting AGW
11) Show that warming threatens no harm whatsoever
12) Show that warming will be a net benefit to humankind.
Let me know if you need more.
Rinse and repeat... YOU are making the positive claims... YOU need to show that they are true. YOU need to show that they adhere to logic, science, and mathematics...
You misunderstand. I am listing methods by which the theory of AGW
could be falsified. The theory is falsifiable. It is valid in that regard. That is has not BEEN falsified by anyone so far is another strong piece of evidence that it is correct
[/QUOTE]
