So how about refuting this?....None -as in
NONE- of the AGW "science" has the following elements of traditional and time-tested scientific method to be found anywhere near it:
- Is repeatable on demand and in context
- Is quantifiable
- Is falsifiable
- Has a static control
- Has a baseline "optimal" temperature from which to compare all data
C'mon, Corky, dazzle us all with your scientific acumen.
I'm curious where you came up with these. However:
If you read up on the scientific method, there are branches of science that are not amenable to experiments; the most common examples being astronomy but also including paleontology, cosmology and climate science. In those cases, experiments to test predictions and demonstrate repeatability are replaced by observations accomplishing the same thing.
Is repeatable on demand and in context
Repeatable observations include global temperature measurements made by NOAA, NCDC, NASA, JWA, NWS, Hadley and others that show very close correlation. Sea level rise and decreasing ice extent and volume do the same thing. Observations of increasing GHGs made by several organization show close correlation. This list goes on.
Is quantifiable
Warming, in terms of total energy, energy per unit area or volume or mass, temperature change, warming rates, sea level rise in absolute value or rates, ice loss in mass or area per unit time, atmospheric CO2 and CH4 levels, pH changes in seawater due to increased levels of dissolved CO2, animal population numbers, changes in migratory dynamics, etc etc etc are all quantifiable metrics of anthropogenic global warming. This claims was ridiculous
Is falsifiable
This has been gone over here repeatedly. There is a substantial list of items that could potentially falsify AGW. A few would include
1) Prove that CO2 does not absorb IR radiation
2) Prove that CO2 cannot warm the atmosphere
3) Prove that the increased CO2 is not of human origin
4) Repeat 1, 2 and 3 for Methane and CFCs
5) Show that the world has NOT grown warmer
6) Shows that some other factor is primarily responsible for the observed warming
7) Prove that the world's climate scientists are all members of a conspiracy to falsify evidence of AGW
And so forth. That you cannot come up with a demonstration that actually DOES falsify AGW is not a problem.
Has a static control
The actual state of the Earth's climate at any time in the past is a static control. The problem, of course, is that our knowledge of it is imperfect and grows more imperfect with increasing age. However, scientists studying paleoclimatology and more recent data, both instrumental and by proxy, are constantly improving the accuracy of that knowledge. It has consistently shown that current GHG levels and current warming are exceptional and that the current rate of GHG and temperature growth is without parallel in tens of millions of years.
Has a baseline "optimal" temperature from which to compare all data
Well, now I see where you got this list. It's anally derived. This demand is simple bullshit.
Tell you what, I think there's an exceptionally high likelihood that the tens of thousands of PhD scientists who accept AGW as valid have a FAR, FAR, FAR better idea of what satisfies then scientific method and what does not, then do you.
