Global Warming Theory guru admits that he ....

[youngterrier]

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.

You're doing this to also despell your irrational belief that smoking has no relation to lung cancer, as I've seen you try this before. First off, when making inferences we have to study the chemical components of peanut butter, along with what those chemicals would do to the body. If there's no ingredient that has any addictive qualities in peanut butter, there's no reason to test it. When you test it, it would come back negative.

You're undermining our knowledge of chemistry and anatomy in this case. In some cases we can have a pretty idea of how things work without testing them, because of our knowledge. Testing them simply puts the concept to rest as fact as you can't deny the evidence.

[AZGrizFan]

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.

I find it hilarious that you can dismiss out of hand the obvious TRENDS in these graphs over the past 200-300 years, but can look at a graph of temperatures that look EXACTLY like these and claim that they are somehow different. Temps have leveled off since 2000--of that there can be no debate. Global warming has slowed/stopped/paused. Yet CO2 emissions continue unabated.

[youngterrier]

[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.

You are so full of shit

When we're talking about the environment, or anatomy, there's often more factors into the equation of what causes what to happen due to complex chemical structures in the economy. For instance, alcohol as a chemical will make one intoxicated, but the specific amount at which that is, is subjective due to a person's genetics, weight, experience etc. There is no set minimal amount of alcohol that everyone will drink in which they will get drunk. In other words, one beer may get person A drunk, but it may take many more for person B. This is why we look to statistical data when doing studies on drugs and other medicines. If 95% of people in the peanut butter experiment get brain cancer, we can say there is good reason to think there is a correlation. We'd observe what is different in the 5% and we could not rule out peanut butter as a cause until we take the people off of peanut butter and the rates stay similar.

Take this to global warming, we have good reason to think CO2 is the cause, thus we could test it. My point is, causation is not a simple as one thing effecting another, it's a lot more complex than that. Just testing one cause will often do nothing in terms of finding, but an accumulation of data is key.

If an assumption is falsifiable, there's no reason in pursuing it as a cause or a reason. We can only find truth through testing falsifiable claims.

[youngterrier]

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.

You're an idiot. You don't solve all of the worlds problems with one experiment. Seeing as we are unable to find the answers in one experiment, we can only accumulate our knowledge of the world through smaller experiments and applying our understanding of the microscopic world to the macroscopic. As I said, the fact that carbon emissions are causing accelerated global warming is testable and falsifiable. All we have to do is decrease our carbon footprint and analyze the other outputs of volcanic, solar, and orbital activity, along with temperatures.

[youngterrier]

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.

I find it hilarious that you can dismiss out of hand the obvious TRENDS in these graphs over the past 200-300 years, but can look at a graph of temperatures that look EXACTLY like these and claim that they are somehow different. Temps have leveled off since 2000--of that there can be no debate. Global warming has slowed/stopped/paused. Yet CO2 emissions continue unabated.

I dismiss the other trends in the graphs you present because in the last 50 years or so, there isn't a consistent pattern. CO2 emissions remain at an increasing trend. Your graph does not address that.

As for the bolded, that's just an outright lie, the last decade was the hottest on record according to the NOAA (consisting of over 300 scientists from over 300 research groups in 48 different countries)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of- ... e/2009.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories201 ... imate.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[youngterrier]

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.

The difference between a hypothesis and a theory is that a theory is well supported, though the exact pin-point nature of the described theory isn't quite put down 100%, but what is officially part of the theory is fact. The term theory is different in the scientific sense than it is in the layman's terminology. to the layman, theory means guess, but to science it's a "well supported conclusion with some details awaiting to be found." Evolution, as described in schools, is a fact.

Just because we can't test that we have ancestory with other apes, does not mean we didn't factually do it. All the evidence leads us to think that we did. You can philosophically say that that is not enough evidence to draw that conclusion, but science is just an explanation. So, philosophically, you can be an "ape agnostic" but scientifically, it's a scientific fact.

[CID1990]

I never saw so many fvcking geniuses in one place before. Its like Cliff Claven and Erkel having an argument.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk while driving on the interstate and brushing my teeth.

[HI54UNI]

Long video but worth the watch.

[youtube][/youtube]