Global Warming Theory guru admits that he ....

[houndawg]

Elaborate. I think the cause and effect inference is indeed purely statistical. I think it's actually hard for it to be any other way. But I want to hear what you have to say.

Well, the idea behind it is that historically speaking, the climate has changed naturally due to rises in temperatures due to carbon emissions (Green house effect) or by being closer to the sun for in these ways.
1) Solar activity
2) orbital activity
3) volcanic activity
4) Ocean currents

The climate changes when such things are changed in one of those ways. There is only possibly one other way, and it has something to do with cloud covering, but all data, evidence, etc has been inconclusive at best, or shown to have no effect at worst. If there is any other way, I'd like someone to enlighten me as to what hat would be.

Reasons 1-3 are in no way possible the fault of man. Ocean currents on the other hand, can be manipulated, changed, etc by the melting rate of the ice burgs and has been historically proven as such (as a force of nature of course). Also, carbon emissions are also proven to have a greenhouse effect (If I'm not mistaken the USAF proved this, or had a part in proving this). Also, it's no secret that Carbon emissions are up in the last 100 years, and it is also no secret that forest life is on the decline (so we have more CO2 in the air, and less trees to offset it via photosynthesis). The increase in heat on the planet, results in warmer temperatures, which results in the melting of ice bergs, which leads to climate change. Now, those facts alone do NOT conclusively prove that climate change.

Now comes in the statistics:

What makes one strongly believe it to be man made is the fact that in the last 100 years orbital, solar, and volcanic activity have been consistent, while statistically Carbon emissions are up, coinciding with temperatures, and there is data to support this. The data is often attempted to be discredited, but I have not read a legitimate criticism or exposure. Temperatures are climbing in the last 100 years at a constant rate especially in the last 20 or so years.

As for predictions, if you've read anything about the science (or what is considered "consensus"), the only thing believed to be consensus is that it is happening. As for predictions, no credible scientist makes claims that are taken seriously and I can't stress this enough. If you have ever read anything about the science, that is one thing you should take away from it.

Sadly, it is sensationalized by some scientists who are deeply concerned, because the uncertainty is unsettling because it could be inconvenient or even disastrous. I myself do not talk about predictions, because they are probably the most polarizing aspects of the whole situation.

People cite Time Magazine from the 70s, and no legitimate scientist made claims of the ice age. Time didn't extremely poor reporting on that one. There was no scientific journal saying anything of the sort. If you're going to discuss global warming and try to "expose" it, don't cite non-scientific peer-reviewed journals.

There's a lot of falsehoods and myths out there, and certain figures like to "debate" about it, but said experts don't have degrees and mislead or misrepresent in ways such as the Time Magazine article. It's much like creationists trying to discredit evolution, the deniers will gladly get on a podium and debate for a news segment, but when it comes to debating online and in scientific literature, they get exposed.

That last paragraph was mainly my commentary, but other than that, that's the "science"

[houndawg]

It's also possible that man is accelerating something that is going to happen anyway, in which case our energy is better spent figuring out how to deal with the end result rather than trying to delay the inevitable.

Exactly.

In 1950 there were 2.5 billion earthlings, now there are 7 billion. We could be what causes a natural occurring cycle to reach a tipping point. In another 30 years we'll be sharing the planet with 10 billion earthlings.

[grizzaholic]

It's also possible that man is accelerating something that is going to happen anyway, in which case our energy is better spent figuring out how to deal with the end result rather than trying to delay the inevitable.

Exactly.

In 1950 there were 2.5 billion earthlings, now there are 7 billion. We could be what causes a natural occurring cycle to reach a tipping point. In another 30 years we'll be sharing the planet with 10 billion earthlings.

WWIII will take care of that.

[AZGrizFan]

I see temp leveling off (actually DROPPING, causing the trend line to level off).

You're ignoring the important parts. From 1860-1940, there's no clear distinction, from 1940 to 1995/2000ish the emissions go up, as does the temperature, while the solar activity does not increase, becomes somewhat inconsistent and perhaps decreases. From there, emissions still go up, and solar emissions go down, bringing it an apparent leveling out. That doesn't do anything for the argument against AGW. All it says is that solar activity has an effect on climate change as well, and I'm not doubting that , no one is saying that climate change is entirely man made. The AGW argument is that mankind is probably accelerating climate change and in fact has a direct relation to the increase in temperatures. The fact that it levels off doesn't support any argument against AGW, in fact, it shows that when solar activity is inverse to CO2 emissions, temperatures will level off. The difference is that we can't change solar activity, but we can change CO2 emissions. It thus follows that temperatures should drop or at least stay constant if we decrease CO2 emissions, and that chart implies as much and certainly doesn't suggest the opposite.

I see what you're saying but you, too, are ignoring the important part: that the graph has leveled off following the decrease in sun spot activity, DESPITE the continued increase in CO2 emissions.

[JohnStOnge]

As for predictions, if you've read anything about the science (or what is considered "consensus"), the only thing believed to be consensus is that it is happening. As for predictions, no credible scientist makes claims that are taken seriously and I can't stress this enough. If you have ever read anything about the science, that is one thing you should take away from it.

They do effectively make predictions. They are careful with semantics and use the term "projections." But they make statements about what will happen in the future. Go to the International Panel on Climate Change web page at https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1gFp6I ... edit?pli=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; for an example. The "Preface starts with:

Climate model results provide the basis for projections of future climate...

[JohnStOnge]

There is only possibly one other way, and it has something to do with cloud covering, but all data, evidence, etc has been inconclusive at best, or shown to have no effect at worst. If there is any other way, I'd like someone to enlighten me as to what hat would be.

You're hitting upon why a controlled experiment is necessary to infer cause and effect. If you don't have a controlled experiment, you have to assume that you know all of the possible causes for an effect and have accounted for them.

With a controlled experiment where you assign experimental subjects to treatment and control groups through randomization, you create a situation in which, if there IS some cause you don't know about, its effect becomes randomly distributed. So it's POSSIBLE that the real reason for what you're seeing is some unknown cause rather than the treatment, but you can quantify the chance that such is the case.

Can't do that with observational data such as that available in climate science. And, unfortunately, controlled experiments are not possible. That's why statements about ANYTHING dealing with cause and effect in climate science being "as certain as it gets in science" are inherently false.

[youngterrier]

You're ignoring the important parts. From 1860-1940, there's no clear distinction, from 1940 to 1995/2000ish the emissions go up, as does the temperature, while the solar activity does not increase, becomes somewhat inconsistent and perhaps decreases. From there, emissions still go up, and solar emissions go down, bringing it an apparent leveling out. That doesn't do anything for the argument against AGW. All it says is that solar activity has an effect on climate change as well, and I'm not doubting that , no one is saying that climate change is entirely man made. The AGW argument is that mankind is probably accelerating climate change and in fact has a direct relation to the increase in temperatures. The fact that it levels off doesn't support any argument against AGW, in fact, it shows that when solar activity is inverse to CO2 emissions, temperatures will level off. The difference is that we can't change solar activity, but we can change CO2 emissions. It thus follows that temperatures should drop or at least stay constant if we decrease CO2 emissions, and that chart implies as much and certainly doesn't suggest the opposite.

I see what you're saying but you, too, are ignoring the important part: that the graph has leveled off following the decrease in sun spot activity, DESPITE the continued increase in CO2 emissions.

It's leveled off for now, but that has all to do with the solar activity going down, I'm not disputing that. Think of it this way: If solar and emission activity are both "up" it's going to be more than if one is up and one is neutral (moderate increase) or one is up and one is down (with a leveling out result). If we increasingly dump emissions into the atmosphere, the temperatures will increase. The sun has a correlation, but at the same time, we can't effect the sun. All it will take is solar activity to pick up again and the temperatures will increase. The only thing offsetting temperature increases is the decreasing solar activity, and that won't last long, let alone forever

[youngterrier]

As for predictions, if you've read anything about the science (or what is considered "consensus"), the only thing believed to be consensus is that it is happening. As for predictions, no credible scientist makes claims that are taken seriously and I can't stress this enough. If you have ever read anything about the science, that is one thing you should take away from it.

They do effectively make predictions. They are careful with semantics and use the term "projections." But they make statements about what will happen in the future. Go to the International Panel on Climate Change web page at https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1gFp6I ... edit?pli=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; for an example. The "Preface starts with:

Climate model results provide the basis for projections of future climate...

There's controversy over the repercussions, that much is certain.

[youngterrier]

There is only possibly one other way, and it has something to do with cloud covering, but all data, evidence, etc has been inconclusive at best, or shown to have no effect at worst. If there is any other way, I'd like someone to enlighten me as to what hat would be.

You're hitting upon why a controlled experiment is necessary to infer cause and effect. If you don't have a controlled experiment, you have to assume that you know all of the possible causes for an effect and have accounted for them.

With a controlled experiment where you assign experimental subjects to treatment and control groups through randomization, you create a situation in which, if there IS some cause you don't know about, its effect becomes randomly distributed. So it's POSSIBLE that the real reason for what you're seeing is some unknown cause rather than the treatment, but you can quantify the chance that such is the case.

Can't do that with observational data such as that available in climate science. And, unfortunately, controlled experiments are not possible. That's why statements about ANYTHING dealing with cause and effect in climate science being "as certain as it gets in science" are inherently false.

You continue to bastardize the scientific method. The cloud covering is the only other possible (maybe not even probable) possibility, until another method is discovered and that is highly unlikely given the extent of which we know about physical science. Climate change, like evolutionary biology saying humans are an evolve form of ape, is one of those scientific methods at which you cannot test it, but the data and understanding of science that we have strongly suggest that is the case. It's a scientific fact that we share common ancestor with other apes and thus we are descendant from them because of the DNA data as well as other aspects of evolutionary theory. In the same way, it is pretty damn implied that carbon emissions is the main source for the acceleration of climate change. Can we test either? No. But the data (in this case, statistical data) is evidence enough. I already stated before that it is not the statistical data alone that gives us a pretty good impressions that GW is man-made, but rather the science behind the stats.

In other words, the hypothesis is that carbon is mostly correlated and given the other 3 possibilities and their statistical levels appearing to be less correlated, we have good reason to think it to be true.

This is where falsifiability comes in, and I know you hate the use of the term, but we don't learn anything about the universe if we base our ideas on claims that can't be disproven. It's especially harmful, when given all of the information we have to say "oh well it could something else, but I don't know what" which is essentially what you are saying. It is well supported, as I have shown, that there is good reason to think that carbon emissions are responsible for the accelerated temperatures. That's a falsifiable claim.

You can falsify it by showing data at which CO2 numbers are up and temperature are down over a period of time, while everything else is constant. The hard part is that the natural causes that aren't carbon related are beyond our control so we can't make it constant to experiment, and that's what your saying. Though this may be true, if numbers remain relatively constant as solar, volcanic, and orbital activity have while emissions have increased sharply and constantly and temperature have increased drastically, seemingly in correlation, that's good data to assume that CO2 is responsible.

You can hold out and say "well, it could be another cause!" but ultimately, it solves no problems. The cloud covering is an example of an unproven possible cause, and it is testable, but here's the kicker: the only reason it hasn't been tested in depth is because of man-made airliners and the exhaust (I forgot the exact terms for the clouds they leave behind) they leave skews the data. The days they did testing on such data were the days following 9/11 when there wasn't a plane in the sky, and that testing appeared negative. Either way, if clouds are responsible, I'm honestly not as read into the specifics, but if they are, it is due to something with the water cycle (which can be attributed to acceleration of evaporation due to increased temperatures) or more clouds "appearing in the sky" if you will.......which can both be linked back to man caused instances.

If that doesn't convince you enough, and you hold out and still think there could be another cause, there's absolutely reasoning with you at all. The burden of proof is not on me to prove there's another method at which climate could change, it's on you. It's an occam's razor principle really. For example, if I'm sitting here minding my own business and you come up, hit me in the face, and run away, and I follow you and find you in your house and accuse you of your action, I have evidence of he event occurring. You can't say "no it was my twin!" unless you have evidence that you actually have a twin, for me to believe you. If you can't provide evidence to support that claim, there's no logical reason for me to think. Your claim has to falsifiable, if you say "my twin disappears into thin air at 3:00 everyday" you have to have evidence to support that as well.

That's how science works. "Teaching the controversy" and giving equal time to unfalsifiable claims and treating them as if they are equal valid does nothing to enlighten us of the nature of the world and is ultimately a waste of time and a bastardization of the scientific method. We can only act on things that we can prove. Until you disprove the legitimacy of a theory or present a superior one, it is considered fact as long as one is unable to do so.

[JohnStOnge]

You continue to bastardize the scientific method.

No, I don't. The scientific method involves experiments. When you can't conduct experiments, there is only so much you can do.

I'll try to illustrate with a fantasy example. Suppose aliens implant an undetectable chip in 50% of the human population. The chip causes people to crave peanut butter and also causes them to develop brain cancer. So we see an association between how much peanut butter people eat and incidence of brain cancer.

Human technology cannot detect the chip. We don't know it's there. We try mathematically "controlling" the observational data for everything else we think might cause brain cancer and we can't make the association go away.

But what if we do a controlled experiment? We take 1000 infants and get them into our trial before they ever have a chance to eat peanut butter. Unknown to us, those darned aliens do plant chips in 500 of them so they're going to crave peanut butter and also develop brain cancer.

But we're doing a controlled experiment. We randomly assign 500 of the children to the "peanut butter" treatment. They will HAVE to eat peanut butter every day. And we randomly assign the other 500 to the control group. They can NEVER eat peanut butter.

We don't know who has the chips. But the randomization means that it is far more likely than not that the children with the chips will be relatively equally distributed between the groups. And we follow them through their lives and see who develops brain cancer.

Because we control the "peanut butter" treatment, it is overwhelmingly likely that we will NOT see an association between eating peanut butter and brain cancer. What we will likely see, instead, is rates of incidence of brain cancer in both groups that are not so different that they can't be attributed to random chance. Then, if the scientific method is pursued, other people will repeat our experiment or design other ones to strengthen the conclusion.

Experimental control takes care of the question of whether or not there is something going on that you don't know about or haven't considered. And to assume that there is nothing you haven't considered or don't know about is very, very questionable.

[JohnStOnge]

ou can falsify it by showing data at which CO2 numbers are up and temperature are down over a period of time, while everything else is constant.

No, you can't because without experimental control you can't be assured that everything else is constant or at least distributed randomly so that you can quantify the likelihood of seeing the results you see. The key isn't "falsifiability", YT. As I've told you before that is a philosophy that is very obviously flawed. It's potential for experimental control. Climate science has no potential for experimental control. So it's got inherent limitations.

[youngterrier]

You continue to bastardize the scientific method.

No, I don't. The scientific method involves experiments. When you can't conduct experiments, there is only so much you can do.

I'll try to illustrate with a fantasy example. Suppose aliens implant an undetectable chip in 50% of the human population. The chip causes people to crave peanut butter and also causes them to develop brain cancer. So we see an association between how much peanut butter people eat and incidence of brain cancer.

Human technology cannot detect the chip. We don't know it's there. We try mathematically "controlling" the observational data for everything else we think might cause brain cancer and we can't make the association go away.

But what if we do a controlled experiment? We take 1000 infants and get them into our trial before they ever have a chance to eat peanut butter. Unknown to us, those darned aliens do plant chips in 500 of them so they're going to crave peanut butter and also develop brain cancer.

But we're doing a controlled experiment. We randomly assign 500 of the children to the "peanut butter" treatment. They will HAVE to eat peanut butter every day. And we randomly assign the other 500 to the control group. They can NEVER eat peanut butter.

We don't know who has the chips. But the randomization means that it is far more likely than not that the children with the chips will be relatively equally distributed between the groups. And we follow them through their lives and see who develops brain cancer.

Because we control the "peanut butter" treatment, it is overwhelmingly likely that we will NOT see an association between eating peanut butter and brain cancer. What we will see, instead, is rates of incidence of brain cancer in both groups that are not so different that they can't be attributed to random chance.

Experimental control takes care of the question of whether or not there is something going on that you don't know about or haven't considered. And to assume that there is nothing you haven't considered or don't know about is very, very questionable.

That's a terrible comparison, as I've said before, the concepts involving global warming is physics. We find out how the climate changes by understanding how the chemicals of the earth works. We then list the possible influences of climate change and eliminate them accordingly.

To your comparison, we would STILL not conclude that aliens did it. if we have no way of detecting it, we won't know, if it's impossible to detect, then we can't know and thus we will never scientifically be able to discover the problem and thus it is ANYONE'S guess. To draw the comparison, scientists would try to discover where the addiction to peanut butter/brain cancer comes from by studying human genetics and anatomy, and from what we know of anatomy/genetics we could draw inferences and test them.

That's what we've done with global warming. We have 4 or 5 possible causes, all but 1 have been well refuted using statistical data. We can rationally conclude that the one not refuted is the cause. That is testable as well. If you think it is something else, you have to prove it, you can't just say "I'm an agnostic" because all that is is a bastardization of the scientific method. The data points to carbon emissions being the cause, and the only way you can test it if you decrease CO2 emissions. If the temperature skyrockets at an inverse relationship, much as a sun spots, then you'd be right in saying we were probably wrong about emissions being the cause.

However, saying there isn't good evidence to think that emissions isn't the cause is the prime example of scientific method bastardization. Scientists don't deal with concepts that "we can never detect." That's not how science works. Science is using the knowledge that we do know to draw conclusions about the world, we then test it. All of our knowledge so far points to carbon emissions. It's completely falsifiable. Too bad people like you, who hate science when it's against your personal beliefs, won't let it be tested.

[youngterrier]

ou can falsify it by showing data at which CO2 numbers are up and temperature are down over a period of time, while everything else is constant.

No, you can't because without experimental control you can't be assured that everything else is constant or at least distributed randomly so that you can quantify the likelihood of seeing the results you see. The key isn't "falsifiability", YT. As I've told you before that is a philosophy that is very obviously flawed. It's potential for experimental control. Climate science has no potential for experimental control. So it's got inherent limitations.

But you know what is falsifiable? THE FACT THAT HUMANS ARE CAUSING CLIMATE CHANGE WITH CARBON EMISSIONS.

All the science and understanding we have of how the climate has changed over the course of the Earth's life has been tested, as it is chemistry. We know what chemicals compose of the earth, and we know how they interact with each other based on different testing.

Falsifiability is the key to experimentation. experimentation is the verifying body of scientific principles, but you can't test something that isn't falsifiable. The constants of the other factors of climate change with the increase in carbon emissions is excellent reason to think CO2 is the cause. The only way to know for sure, is to test it, I agree, but to say it is untestable is bullshit.

[houndawg]

No, you can't because without experimental control you can't be assured that everything else is constant or at least distributed randomly so that you can quantify the likelihood of seeing the results you see. The key isn't "falsifiability", YT. As I've told you before that is a philosophy that is very obviously flawed. It's potential for experimental control. Climate science has no potential for experimental control. So it's got inherent limitations.

But you know what is falsifiable? THE FACT THAT HUMANS ARE CAUSING CLIMATE CHANGE WITH CARBON EMISSIONS.

All the science and understanding we have of how the climate has changed over the course of the Earth's life has been tested, as it is chemistry. We know what chemicals compose of the earth, and we know how they interact with each other based on different testing.

Falsifiability is the key to experimentation. experimentation is the verifying body of scientific principles, but you can't test something that isn't falsifiable. The constants of the other factors of climate change with the increase in carbon emissions is excellent reason to think CO2 is the cause. The only way to know for sure, is to test it, I agree, but to say it is untestable is bullshit.

CO2 is likely responsible for the increase in carbonic acid in the oceans too.

[youngterrier]

But you know what is falsifiable? THE FACT THAT HUMANS ARE CAUSING CLIMATE CHANGE WITH CARBON EMISSIONS.

All the science and understanding we have of how the climate has changed over the course of the Earth's life has been tested, as it is chemistry. We know what chemicals compose of the earth, and we know how they interact with each other based on different testing.

Falsifiability is the key to experimentation. experimentation is the verifying body of scientific principles, but you can't test something that isn't falsifiable. The constants of the other factors of climate change with the increase in carbon emissions is excellent reason to think CO2 is the cause. The only way to know for sure, is to test it, I agree, but to say it is untestable is bullshit.

CO2 is likely responsible for the increase in carbonic acid in the oceans too.

You have no testable information to draw that conclusion from I'm being sarcastic of course.

[AZGrizFan]

The constants of the other factors of climate change with the increase in carbon emissions is excellent reason to think CO2 is the cause. The only way to know for sure, is to test it, I agree, but to say it is untestable is bullshit.

Sunspot activity since 1750:



Recorded volcanic activity since 1790:




Sorry, but I still don't agree with your hypothesis. Sunspot activity is NOT constant and measured/recorded volcanic activity has been steadily increasing as well.

[JohnStOnge]

That's a terrible comparison, as I've said before, the concepts involving global warming is physics. We find out how the climate changes by understanding how the chemicals of the earth works. We then list the possible influences of climate change and eliminate them accordingly.

To your comparison, we would STILL not conclude that aliens did it. if we have no way of detecting it, we won't know

It's not a comparison. It's an illustration of why controlled experimentation is necessary. We would not know the alien chips were causing the problem. But we would know something other than peanut butter is. We would never "falsify" peanut butter as the cause because failing to develop sufficient evidence to conclude that peanut butter is the cause is not showing that it is not. But we would see that we could not show a cause and effect relationship between peanut butter and brain cancer under controlled experimental conditions so we would start looking for some other explanation. Perhaps some day we'd find a way to detect the alien chips.

That's the way it works.

[JohnStOnge]

[quote\But you know what is falsifiable? THE FACT THAT HUMANS ARE CAUSING CLIMATE CHANGE WITH CARBON EMISSIONS.[/quote]

That's not "falsifiable," YT. Surely you can see that. Even if we somehow stopped all anthropogenic carbon emissions tomorrow and monitored what subsequently happens with the climate we would have no way of confirming whether or not things would've happened in the same way or differently if we hadn't stopped carbon emissions.

All the science and understanding we have of how the climate has changed over the course of the Earth's life has been tested, as it is chemistry. We know what chemicals compose of the earth, and we know how they interact with each other based on different testing.

Certain things have been experimentally verified. Like it's been experimentally verified that carbon dioxide holds heat. But that is not the same as verifying that a complex planetary system that includes carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will warm at any particular rate because a certain amount of carbon dioxide is added to the atmosphere.

Falsifiability is the key to experimentation. experimentation is the verifying body of scientific principles, but you can't test something that isn't falsifiable.

YT, I don't know why you are so devoted to Popper's philosophical statement on science but it is a fallacy. Falsifiability is not the key to experimentation. Control is. Take the peanut butter illustration again. I mentioned this but I'll elaborate now. When the experiment to test for a cause and effect relationship between peanut butter and brain cancer at the selected level of confidence (say 95%), the correct way to state the results is, "There is not sufficient evidence, at α = 0.05, that consuming peanut butter causes brain cancer. It is NOT correct to say that the experiment showed that peanut butter does NOT cause brain cancer. The null hypothesis can never be inferred. It can only be rejected; in which case the alternative hypothesis (cause and effect) is accepted.

Ironically, the only way one could ever show that peanut butter does not cause brain cancer is if the reality is that it actually PREVENTS brain cancer. In that case, over a number of experiments, investigators would notice that there is a "significantly" LOWER rate of cancer among those who are given the peanut butter treatment. So then they might design experiments to show cause and effect in the other direction.

But if the truth is that peanut butter has no effect on brain cancer risk at all that can never be shown because over a large number of experiments the overwhelming preponderance of outcomes will be "no 'significant' difference." The hypothesis that peanut butter causes brain cancer can never be "falsified."

Now, it is possible to infer that if there IS an effect it is no larger than X. You can do that by putting confidence intervals around differences observed or by constructing a one sided confidence limit. But you can never infer that the effect = 0.

Whoever started this "falsifiability" fad as a means of trying not to get into debates about intelligent design really did some damage in terms of misinforming people. I can see that.

[JohnStOnge]

[quote\But you know what is falsifiable? THE FACT THAT HUMANS ARE CAUSING CLIMATE CHANGE WITH CARBON EMISSIONS.

That's not "falsifiable," YT. Surely you can see that. Even if we somehow stopped all anthropogenic carbon emissions tomorrow and monitored what subsequently happens with the climate we would have no way of confirming whether or not things would've happened in the same way or differently if we hadn't stopped carbon emissions.

All the science and understanding we have of how the climate has changed over the course of the Earth's life has been tested, as it is chemistry. We know what chemicals compose of the earth, and we know how they interact with each other based on different testing.

Certain things have been experimentally verified. Like it's been experimentally verified that carbon dioxide holds heat. But that is not the same as verifying that a complex planetary system that includes carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will warm at any particular rate because a certain amount of carbon dioxide is added to the atmosphere.

Falsifiability is the key to experimentation. experimentation is the verifying body of scientific principles, but you can't test something that isn't falsifiable.

YT, I don't know why you are so devoted to Popper's philosophical statement on science but it is a fallacy. Falsifiability is not the key to experimentation. Control is. Take the peanut butter illustration again. I mentioned this but I'll elaborate now. When the experiment to test for a cause and effect relationship between peanut butter and brain cancer at the selected level of confidence (say 95%), the correct way to state the results is, "There is not sufficient evidence, at α = 0.05, that consuming peanut butter causes brain cancer. It is NOT correct to say that the experiment showed that peanut butter does NOT cause brain cancer. The null hypothesis can never be inferred. It can only be rejected; in which case the alternative hypothesis (cause and effect) is accepted.

Ironically, the only way one could ever show that peanut butter does not cause brain cancer is if the reality is that it actually PREVENTS brain cancer. In that case, over a number of experiments, investigators would notice that there is a "significantly" LOWER rate of cancer among those who are given the peanut butter treatment. So then they might design experiments to show cause and effect in the other direction.

But if the truth is that peanut butter has no effect on brain cancer risk at all that can never be shown because over a large number of experiments the overwhelming preponderance of outcomes will be "no 'significant' difference." The hypothesis that peanut butter causes brain cancer can never be "falsified."

Now, it is possible to infer that if there IS an effect it is no larger than X. You can do that by putting confidence intervals around differences observed or by constructing a one sided confidence limit. But you can never infer that the effect = 0.

Whoever started this "falsifiability" fad as a means of trying not to get into debates about intelligent design really did some damage in terms of misinforming people. I can see that.

[JohnStOnge]

Here are the steps of the scientific method again (from http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu:8080/ ... ndixE.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

Two things stand out. One is that experiments are required. The other is that there is nothing at all about "falsifiability." It's about positively supporting the hypothesis. It's not about establishing that it is falsifiable.

Back to the experimentation issue: I keep posting what I'm about to post and it seems to just keep going into one eyeball and out the other. It's the language from the International Panel on Cllimate Change (IPCC) Physical Science Basis report at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... tents.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Click on 9, Understanding and Attributing Climate Change, then click on 9.1.2, What are Climate Change Detection and Attribution?.

Now, read the fourth paragraph; which reads:

Detection does not imply attribution of the detected change to the assumed cause. ‘Attribution’ of causes of climate change is the process of establishing the most likely causes for the detected change with some defined level of confidence (see Glossary). As noted in the SAR (IPCC, 1996) and the TAR (IPCC, 2001), unequivocal attribution would require controlled experimentation with the climate system. Since that is not possible, in practice attribution of anthropogenic climate change is understood to mean demonstration that a detected change is ‘consistent with the estimated responses to the given combination of anthropogenic and natural forcing’ and ‘not consistent with alternative, physically plausible explanations of recent climate change that exclude important elements of the given combination of forcings’ (IPCC, 2001)"

Underline added for emphasis. The underlined language makes my point. I disagree with it in that I think that even experiments with the earth's climate system, if they were possible, would not be sufficient. You would, at a minimum, have to have four Earth-Like planets for the experiment. Two "treatment" planets and two "control" planets. You need two in each group because you need to be able to determine if variation between groups of planets is "significantly" greater than variation within groups of planets. But, nevertheless, the IPCC does correctly say that unequivocal attribution (assignment of cause and effect) is not possible given the circumstances.

BTW, even selection of the term "attribution" is, I think, the result of careful assignment of terminology. They are trying to avoid saying, "This causes that" in a very direct manner because they know that would not be correct. They came up with using the term "attribution" which they define as basically referring to what they think is "most likely" causing a given thing. They are equivocating; as they should. Unfortunately, they give the general public the impression that they are making very definitive, certain statements. In a sense they probably are because they strongly believe they know what causes what and to what extent. But I don't think the fact that they have not met the scientific method's standard for inferring cause and effect on a planetary system scale comes across to the general public or the news media.

[JohnStOnge]

The burden of proof is not on me to prove there's another method at which climate could change, it's on you.

Wrong. The burden of proof is on you to come up with a controlled experiment in which you apply the factors you hypothesize as causing climate change and demonstrate that they have the effect you predict they will have. And, as indicated by the IPCC quote I provided above, that's not possible. So you're out of luck.

I win the argument, whether you ever recognize it or not.

[89Hen]

YT hath spoken. Everyone can stop discussing.

[AZGrizFan]

The burden of proof is not on me to prove there's another method at which climate could change, it's on you.

Wrong. The burden of proof is on you to come up with a controlled experiment in which you apply the factors you hypothesize as causing climate change and demonstrate that they have the effect you predict they will have. And, as indicated by the IPCC quote I provided above, that's not possible. So you're out of luck.

I win the argument, whether you ever recognize it or not.

[LeadBolt]

Way back when I studied science, a hypothesis or theory had to be tested and be observable and and repeatable in a controlled environment to become scientific fact. That is why evolution, at that time was referred to as a theory, not a scientific fact. The same would hold true for climatic change, neither can be tested in a controlled environment.

[youngterrier]

The constants of the other factors of climate change with the increase in carbon emissions is excellent reason to think CO2 is the cause. The only way to know for sure, is to test it, I agree, but to say it is untestable is bullshit.

Sunspot activity since 1750:



Recorded volcanic activity since 1790:




Sorry, but I still don't agree with your hypothesis. Sunspot activity is NOT constant and measured/recorded volcanic activity has been steadily increasing as well.

You just don't get it......your graphs show a list of extended data, but the reason there is good reason to think it's carbon emissions is because in the last 50 years, activity has been constant, while others have not. True, there has been an upward trend in the last 300 years, but that means nothing for the last 30-50 years. In the last 30-50 years, volcanic and solar activity has been inconsistent and not constant, but not showing any consistent increase at all. On the flip side, carbon emissions are up, deforestation is up, and so are temperatures. It's the only thing correlating.