Global Warming - From Science to Agitprop

[Chris]

Sorry, but long, but this is, imo, one of the better write ups on climate change, science and the philosophy of science I've ever read.

Global Warming - From Science to Agitprop (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/rupert-darwall/global-warming_b_3615720.html)


...With global warming, science morphs seamlessly into political campaigning, Bob Ward's article, 'The Corruption of the Public Debate on Climate Change,' being a fairly typical example of the genre.

There is the obsession with secret funding sources and with the ideological motivations of non-adherents, things the philosopher Karl Popper identified as telltale signs of a pseudoscience.

Amidst all the agitprop, there is a nugget of science: no 15-year period of global temperature yields a statistically significant trend. But then, to its embarrassment, neither could the Met Office demonstrate a statistically significant trend in global temperature for the last 130 years.

That doesn't mean observed temperatures did not rise - they did - or that global warming, whether man-made or not, did not happen. Rather it illustrates the sheer difficulty in demonstrating whether the rise is outside a range of random natural variation and of moving from the physics of the test tube to the immense complexity of the atmosphere.

Bert Bolin, the first chairman of the IPCC, acknowledged that global warming was not something 'which you can prove.' In one of his last lectures, the late Stephen Schneider - one of the most intellectually able of all climate scientists - asked his students whether the science of anthropogenic climate change was settled. Dumb question, he answered. 'Climate science is not like test tube science,' Schneider said. 'You don't falsify.'

Although codified by Popper in the 1920s, falsifiability was the standard set in the Scientific Revolution and used with devastating effect by Lavoisier in his demolition of the phlogiston theory of combustion. Instead of seeking evidence that would falsify, climate science follows a much older injunction, one from the Beatitudes: 'Seek and ye shall find.'

As Popper argued, evidence can be found for virtually any proposition, so when global temperatures don't rise as anticipated, evidence is sought in ocean temperatures, sea ice extent and glacier retreat.

The absence of a falsifiability test renders the science of global warming inherently weak. Instead acceptance of the central proposition of global warming - that the earth's atmosphere is rapidly warming thanks to man's activities - marks a reversion to pre-scientific standards, principally its reliance on consensus, peer review and appeals to authority.

Computer simulations of future temperature rises cannot be verified. In the words of the mid-20th century Nobel physicist PW Bridgman, to correctly predict only has a past tense.

The provisional findings of climate science cannot explain how global warming, which was little more than a scientific curiosity for much of the 20th century, became a political phenomenon that defines our age....

In 1957, the American scientists Roger Revelle and Hans Suess pointed out that mankind was carrying out a large-scale geophysical experiment. Prejudging the results of a scientific experiment is bad science, yet this one simultaneously generates powerful calls to halt the experiment before it is concluded by invoking the precautionary principle.

'What is called objectivity consists solely of the critical approach,' Popper wrote. But questioning climate science science undermines collective action to save the planet, so critics and sceptics must be marginalised and delegitmised. No one knows the outcome of the geophysical experiment. But the results of the politico-scientific experiment are now in, and include the demotion of the scientific standards established by the Scientific Revolution.

[nic34]

And if you think we can continue to depend on fossil fuels, this is a wake up call:

The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight: The Death of Trees
An excerpt from the book.
We have already done irreversible (in our lifetimes) damage to the soil, water, air, and life forms of Earth.
More than 75% of the topsoil that existed worldwide when Europeans first colonized America is now gone, and substantial damage has been done to the water cycle by cutting our forests.

In this chapter we’ll explore this subject and learn what it means for our future. By burning trees, coal, and oil, we’re currently pouring over six billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year, an explosion compared to the 1.6 billion tons we spit out in 1950. That carbon (most in the form of the gas carbon dioxide) is creating a greenhouse shield which is believed by the United Nations and informed scientists to be causing wild extremes of weather worldwide. Grain and food production in both America and the rest of the world peaked during the 1980s (and have been declining in the 1990s), leading to both record profits for the agriculture companies and the most widespread hunger and starvation in the history of the planet.

How can it be that our scientific knowledge, which is real and produces tangible benefits, is also leading to a disruption of our existence? The answer is that the tangible results come in isolated specific arenas, and their gains are accomplished by mortgaging our future: spending one part of the system to benefit another.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2007/11/last-hours-ancient-sunlight-death-trees

http://www.amazon.com/The-Last-Hours-Ancient-Sunlight/dp/1400051576

[Cigar]

I love it when people try to argue with Tom Hartman on his show. :grin:

[Chris]

And if you think we can continue to depend on fossil fuels, this is a wake up call:

The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight: The Death of Trees
An excerpt from the book.
We have already done irreversible (in our lifetimes) damage to the soil, water, air, and life forms of Earth.
More than 75% of the topsoil that existed worldwide when Europeans first colonized America is now gone, and substantial damage has been done to the water cycle by cutting our forests.

In this chapter we’ll explore this subject and learn what it means for our future. By burning trees, coal, and oil, we’re currently pouring over six billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year, an explosion compared to the 1.6 billion tons we spit out in 1950. That carbon (most in the form of the gas carbon dioxide) is creating a greenhouse shield which is believed by the United Nations and informed scientists to be causing wild extremes of weather worldwide. Grain and food production in both America and the rest of the world peaked during the 1980s (and have been declining in the 1990s), leading to both record profits for the agriculture companies and the most widespread hunger and starvation in the history of the planet.

How can it be that our scientific knowledge, which is real and produces tangible benefits, is also leading to a disruption of our existence? The answer is that the tangible results come in isolated specific arenas, and their gains are accomplished by mortgaging our future: spending one part of the system to benefit another.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2007/11/last-hours-ancient-sunlight-death-trees

http://www.amazon.com/The-Last-Hours-Ancient-Sunlight/dp/1400051576




Sorry, topic has nothing to do with continuing to use fossil fuels.


How can it be that our scientific knowledge, which is real and produces tangible benefits, is also leading to a disruption of our existence?


In 1957, the American scientists Roger Revelle and Hans Suess pointed out that mankind was carrying out a large-scale geophysical experiment. Prejudging the results of a scientific experiment is bad science, yet this one simultaneously generates powerful calls to halt the experiment before it is concluded by invoking the precautionary principle.

[Chris]

Here I think is the main point:


The absence of a falsifiability test renders the science of global warming inherently weak. Instead acceptance of the central proposition of global warming - that the earth's atmosphere is rapidly warming thanks to man's activities - marks a reversion to pre-scientific standards, principally its reliance on consensus, peer review and appeals to authority.

It puts both alarmists and deniers in check. Because climate science provides no falsifiability test it renders it similar to religion where you can't prove or disprove it (not that science is provable to begin with!).

[mogur]

Here I think is the main point:

"The absence of a falsifiability test renders the science of global warming inherently weak."

It puts both alarmists and deniers in check. Because climate science provides no falsifiability test it renders it similar to religion where you can't prove or disprove it (not that science is provable to begin with!).

Well a little more context can be given- "The absence of a falsifiability test renders the science of global warming inherently weak. Instead acceptance of the central proposition of global warming - that the earth's atmosphere is rapidly warming thanks to man's activities - marks a reversion to pre-scientific standards, principally its reliance on consensus, peer review and appeals to authority."

I am no climate scientist, but I am a scientist, and I vehemently object to that quote (whoever it was from). Peer review is a valid scientific standard, while blind consensus and appeals to authority are the antithesis of the scientific method. If you believe anything else in this horrific diatribe, you are not giving the scientific method any quarter. Models and hypotheses are the accepted format of scientific conjecture. And they can be FALSIFIED. There certainly is no blind consensus and authority involved. It is yes or no. Did the model/hypothesis fit the facts, or did it not? One point for yes, back to the drawing board for no. Similar to religion? Where were you educated? It was religion that impeded Copernicus and Galileo, not peer review.

Since I am not a climate scientist, I have no basis for judging the validity of various climate science hypotheses. But I tend to accept that which the vast majority of those specialists agree on. You have to remember that peer-reviewed consensus is fundamentally different than political/religious/egotistical/financial consensus. Remember that faith may be good in the face of challenges, but discovery is much better in the face of progress.

[Chris]

Well a little more context can be given- "The absence of a falsifiability test renders the science of global warming inherently weak. Instead acceptance of the central proposition of global warming - that the earth's atmosphere is rapidly warming thanks to man's activities - marks a reversion to pre-scientific standards, principally its reliance on consensus, peer review and appeals to authority."

I am no climate scientist, but I am a scientist, and I vehemently object to that quote (whoever it was from). Peer review is a valid scientific standard, while blind consensus and appeals to authority are the antithesis of the scientific method. If you believe anything else in this horrific diatribe, you are not giving the scientific method any quarter. Models and hypotheses are the accepted format of scientific conjecture. And they can be FALSIFIED. There certainly is no blind consensus and authority involved. It is yes or no. Did the model/hypothesis fit the facts, or did it not? One point for yes, back to the drawing board for no. Similar to religion? Where were you educated? It was religion that impeded Copernicus and Galileo, not peer review.

Since I am not a climate scientist, I have no basis for judging the validity of various climate science hypotheses. But I tend to accept that which the vast majority of those specialists agree on. You have to remember that peer-reviewed consensus is fundamentally different than political/religious/egotistical/financial consensus. Remember that faith may be good in the face of challenges, but discovery is much better in the face of progress.

You're a scientist and don't understand falsifiability?

[Peter1469]

In the climate science field, peer review is more like an inquisition.

[RosieS]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/24/world/climate-arctic-methane/index.html

Thawed permafrost is decidedly not agitprop.

Regards from Rosie

[Chris]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/24/world/climate-arctic-methane/index.html

Thawed permafrost is decidedly not agitprop.

Regards from Rosie

Claimed as an isolated event, it is agitprop.

http://i.snag.gy/hOaki.jpg

[mogur]

You're a scientist and don't understand falsifiability?

You're an intelligent being and can't comprehend what I posted? I'll type a little slower. The scientific method starts with an hypothesis (an idea, a guess, or a postulate). A prediction is then constructed based on that hypothesis. That prediction is either verified or falsified. If it is falsified, that hypothesis is discarded. If it is verified, then other predictions based on that hypothesis continue to be scrutinized by the proposer and his peers for falsifications. The progression from hypothesis, through models, and eventually to full blown theory, only proceeds with verification at each step. Any falsification halts that progress.

It is a stunning insult to climate scientists to suggest that they are perverting the scientific method by ignoring falsifiability. That accusation bears the responsibility to verify that disparaging claim, instead of blindly making an assumption that this particular field of scientific endeavor is somehow prone to ignorance of proper scientific method, and implying that they are simply money-grubbing supplicants manipulated by government Machiavellianists.

[Chris]

You're an intelligent being and can't comprehend what I posted? I'll type a little slower. The scientific method starts with an hypothesis (an idea, a guess, or a postulate). A prediction is then constructed based on that hypothesis. That prediction is either verified or falsified. If it is falsified, that hypothesis is discarded. If it is verified, then other predictions based on that hypothesis continue to be scrutinized by the proposer and his peers for falsifications. The progression from hypothesis, through models, and eventually to full blown theory, only proceeds with verification at each step. Any falsification halts that progress.

It is a stunning insult to climate scientists to suggest that they are perverting the scientific method by ignoring falsifiability. That accusation bears the responsibility to verify that disparaging claim, instead of blindly making an assumption that this particular field of scientific endeavor is somehow prone to ignorance of proper scientific method, and implying that they are simply money-grubbing supplicants manipulated by government Machiavellianists.

Nice insult but I know what science and scientific methodology are and it includes the requirement of testability, of falsifiability, any hypothesis must state how other can test and falsify it. As you state: "Any falsification halts that progress."

It's not an insult to point out they have not produced hypotheses that are testable. It's a fact. Read the OP.

[mogur]

Insult? A little thin-skinned are we?

Look, you (and Darwall) can't claim climate science hypotheses aren't falsifiable. Climate systems are complex and chaotic, but not unfalsifiable. Darwall (not a climate scientist, btw) can't just throw up his hands and claim that it's just too complex and therefore the hard-working, dedicated climate scientists are obviously relying on political and other non-scientific shenanigans to establish their hypotheses. That is projecting his political bias onto the science, not the other way around. If all climate scientists were liberal environmental dolts, he might have a point, but he doesn't even try to establish that, because it is not true. Many of them are limited-government conservatives.

Who established the Montreal Protocol that internationally banned CFCs? Who proposed a cap and trade on sulfide emissions to combat acid rain? Who was the first to ban smog creating lead additives in gasoline? Who said-
I'm proud of having been one of the first to recognize that States and the Federal Government have a duty to protect our natural resources from the damaging effects of pollution that can accompany industrial development.

In spite of sometimes fierce opposition from his own conservative advisers and cabinet, and even despite the lack of established hypotheses from climate scientists about the correlation between the environment and these potentially destructive elements, Ronald Reagan succeeded in all of the above accomplishments. He did not whine about the complexity of the science, nor the background noise inherent in the science, he simply saw that it is a likely correlation and felt that it was his duty to take steps to avoid some of the damage due to industrialization.

We are today, still verifying Einstein's hypotheses on relativity. A hundred years ago, few understood his concepts and it took many decades to even initially verify his claims. The fact that climate science involves chaotic and complex data, and will also take many years to verify proposed models does not make it a pseudo-science and justify vilifying the scientists who have dedicated their lives to the hard work necessary to advance our understanding of the subject, conservative and liberal scientists, alike.

[Chris]

Insult? A little thin-skinned are we?

Look, you (and Darwall) can't claim climate science hypotheses aren't falsifiable. Climate systems are complex and chaotic, but not unfalsifiable. Darwall (not a climate scientist, btw) can't just throw up his hands and claim that it's just too complex and therefore the hard-working, dedicated climate scientists are obviously relying on political and other non-scientific shenanigans to establish their hypotheses. That is projecting his political bias onto the science, not the other way around. If all climate scientists were liberal environmental dolts, he might have a point, but he doesn't even try to establish that, because it is not true. Many of them are limited-government conservatives.

Who established the Montreal Protocol that internationally banned CFCs? Who proposed a cap and trade on sulfide emissions to combat acid rain? Who was the first to ban smog creating lead additives in gasoline? Who said-

In spite of sometimes fierce opposition from his own conservative advisers and cabinet, and even despite the lack of established hypotheses from climate scientists about the correlation between the environment and these potentially destructive elements, Ronald Reagan succeeded in all of the above accomplishments. He did not whine about the complexity of the science, nor the background noise inherent in the science, he simply saw that it is a likely correlation and felt that it was his duty to take steps to avoid some of the damage due to industrialization.

We are today, still verifying Einstein's hypotheses on relativity. A hundred years ago, few understood his concepts and it took many decades to even initially verify his claims. The fact that climate science involves chaotic and complex data, and will also take many years to verify proposed models does not make it a pseudo-science and justify vilifying the scientists who have dedicated their lives to the hard work necessary to advance our understanding of the subject, conservative and liberal scientists, alike.

LOL, weren't you the one initially whining about insult? And you end up the last post whining again. Kinda hypocritical, no?

You say climate science is falsifiable, but then merely resume insulting and attacking the messenger.

Einstein's hypotheses were with clear and simple statements how to falsify them. That makes them scientific. And you speak of verifying: "We are today, still verifying", seems you're forgetting falsifiability. Popper offered falsifiability to get around the problem of induction revealed by Hume.

You could resolve this now simply by stating clearly and simply how to falsify the hypotheses of climate science.

Well?

[lynn]

Considering that science is funded by the government, explaining the data of the models can easily be manipulated to benefit the ones who fund it.

[mogur]

LOL, weren't you the one initially whining about insult? And you end up the last post whining again. Kinda hypocritical, no?What parallel universe are you in? I only have 9 posts here, total. It doesn't take much research to conclude that you are lying about that.


You say climate science is falsifiable, but then merely resume insulting and attacking the messenger. The preposition that climate scientists are not adhering to proper scientific method is Darwall's contention that you quoted, supported, and initiated in this thread. I am only asking for the basis for your conclusion. If you accuse a scientist of malfeasance, it is incumbent on you to support your accusation, not ask for proof that it is wrong.


Einstein's hypotheses were with clear and simple statements how to falsify them. That makes them scientific. And you speak of verifying: "We are today, still verifying", seems you're forgetting falsifiability. Popper offered falsifiability to get around the problem of induction revealed by Hume. Wow, are you really this clueless? At the time, they were neither 'clear nor simple'. Einstein proffered an hypothesis that went against everything known to science at the time. That is what made it so remarkable. Both the fact that it was so difficult to verify, and that we are still doing experiments today to verify his hypotheses is testament to his contribution. If you need simplicity and immediacy of verification for your definition of 'science', then you certainly shouldn't hold Einstein to that measure.


You could resolve this now simply by stating clearly and simply how to falsify the hypotheses of climate science.

Well?Again, I will type slowly... look at each model of climate science, determine if it meets the parameters of its prediction and then decide if it predicts reality or not. This is science 101. Toss the models that fail. It is also called falsibility. Exactly what do you not understand?

[Chris]

What parallel universe are you in? I only have 9 posts here, total. It doesn't take much research to conclude that you are lying about that.

The preposition that climate scientists are not adhering to proper scientific method is Darwall's contention that you quoted, supported, and initiated in this thread. I am only asking for the basis for your conclusion. If you accuse a scientist of malfeasance, it is incumbent on you to support your accusation, not ask for proof that it is wrong.

Wow, are you really this clueless? At the time, they were neither 'clear nor simple'. Einstein proffered an hypothesis that went against everything known to science at the time. That is what made it so remarkable. Both the fact that it was so difficult to verify, and that we are still doing experiments today to verify his hypotheses is testament to his contribution. If you need simplicity and immediacy of verification for your definition of 'science', then you certainly shouldn't hold Einstein to that measure.

Again, I will type slowly... look at each model of climate science, determine if it meets the parameters of its prediction and then decide if it predicts reality or not. This is science 101. Toss the models that fail. It is also called falsibility. Exactly what do you not understand?


What parallel universe are you in? I only have 9 posts here, total. It doesn't take much research to conclude that you are lying about that.

I'm talking about your posts. Try reading your own words to find you whining and your insults.


I am only asking for the basis for your conclusion. If you accuse a scientist of malfeasance, it is incumbent on you to support your accusation, not ask for proof that it is wrong.

That's been given. You reject it and claim climate science is scientific. I asked you state how it is testable, how it is falsifiable. You've failed to do that at all.


Wow, are you really this clueless?

Is that all you have, insults. Unable to specify how climate science is testable, falsifiable, you resort to insults to cover up your failure.


At the time, they were neither 'clear nor simple'. Einstein proffered an hypothesis that went against everything known to science at the time. That is what made it so remarkable. Both the fact that it was so difficult to verify, and that we are still doing experiments today to verify his hypotheses is testament to his contribution.

Again, you tell me things I already know. Yes, it was not even possible to test Einstein's theories at the time. But my point was he specified how they could be tested, how they could be falsified.


...With Einstein's theory the situation was strikingly different. Take one typical instance — Einstein's prediction, just then confirmed by the finding of Eddington's expedition. Einstein's gravitational theory had led to the result that light must be attracted by heavy bodies (such as the sun), precisely as material bodies were attracted. As a consequence it could be calculated that light from a distant fixed star whose apparent position was close to the sun would reach the earth from such a direction that the star would seem to be slightly shifted away from the sun; or, in other words, that stars close to the sun would look as if they had moved a little away from the sun, and from one another. This is a thing which cannot normally be observed since such stars are rendered invisible in daytime by the sun's overwhelming brightness; but during an eclipse it is possible to take photographs of them. If the same constellation is photographed at night one can measure the distance on the two photographs, and check the predicted effect.

Now the impressive thing about this case is the risk involved in a prediction of this kind. If observation shows that the predicted effect is definitely absent, then the theory is simply refuted. The theory is incompatible with certain possible results of observation—in fact with results which everybody before Einstein would have expected.[1] This is quite different from the situation I have previously described, when it turned out that the theories in question were compatible with the most divergent human behavior, so that it was practically impossible to describe any human behavior that might not be claimed to be a verification of these theories....

I may perhaps exemplify this with the help of the various theories so far mentioned. Einstein's theory of gravitation clearly satisfied the criterion of falsifiability. Even if our measuring instruments at the time did not allow us to pronounce on the results of the tests with complete assurance, there was clearly a possibility of refuting the theory.

@ Science as Falsification (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html)





You could resolve this now simply by stating clearly and simply how to falsify the hypotheses of climate science.

Again, I will type slowly... look at each model of climate science, determine if it meets the parameters of its prediction and then decide if it predicts reality or not. This is science 101. Toss the models that fail. It is also called falsibility. Exactly what do you not understand?

What I don't understand is why you who thinks climate science testable, falsifiable ("falsibility"???) cannot tell us how it is testable, how it is falsifiable. You can type as slowly as you want, but if you can't show what you claim, it won't matter. If it's science 101 you should be able to do that in a few words.



How is climate science testable, falsifiable?

[mogur]

Considering that science is funded by the government, explaining the data of the models can easily be manipulated to benefit the ones who fund it.

Allow me to translate this anti-science drivel- 'All science is American. The American government funds all science. The American government decides how the data should be manipulated. All American scientists are on the dole. Therefore, we shouldn't believe anything the scientists say.'

How f'ing ignorant is that statement? The US is a great country, but to credit her with the totality of scientific knowledge or opinion is silly. To say that all scientists that disagree with your point of view are corrupted by government is not only arrogant, but ignorant. The totality of science encompasses those scientists that are governed and even sometimes funded by governments of other countries. In case you didn't notice, some governments are conservative. Some governments are of different religious backgrounds, different political bents, different economic situations, different agendas, and different encumberments. Yet in your imagination, they are all 'easily manipulated by the money bags'.

[Chris]

Allow me to translate this anti-science drivel- 'All science is American. The American government funds all science. The American government decides how the data should be manipulated. All American scientists are on the dole. Therefore, we shouldn't believe anything the scientists say.'

How f'ing ignorant is that statement? The US is a great country, but to credit her with the totality of scientific knowledge or opinion is silly. To say that all scientists that disagree with your point of view are corrupted by government is not only arrogant, but ignorant. The totality of science encompasses those scientists that are governed and even sometimes funded by governments of other countries. In case you didn't notice, some governments are conservative. Some governments are of different religious backgrounds, different political bents, different economic situations, different agendas, and different encumberments. Yet in your imagination, they are all 'easily manipulated by the money bags'.

I agree, it's ignorant, but have to ask why you invented such an ignorant straw man? Ditto the rest of your ranting post.

[mogur]

Chris, really? That is your best scientific argument? I had hoped for a more challenging rebuttal.

[Referring to your previous post, not this one.]

[mogur]

What I don't understand is why you who thinks climate science testable, falsifiable ("falsibility"???) cannot tell us how it is testable, how it is falsifiable. You can type as slowly as you want, but if you can't show what you claim, it won't matter. If it's science 101 you should be able to do that in a few words.



How is climate science testable, falsifiable?

You proposed an opinion that climate science is junk, i.e. 'pseudo-science'. And I have to prove the negative? That is not science 101, that is manure.

[mogur]

I agree, it's ignorant, but have to ask why you invented such an ignorant straw man? Ditto the rest of your ranting post.

What? I invented a straw man? Did you not read the ignorant post that I quoted? How is that 'inventing a straw man'? No offense, lynn, but come on, scientists are human. Some good, some bad, some heroic, and some shameful. But to claim that they are all subject to financial manipulation is a bit disingenuous. (And I certainly hope that you didn't seriously expect to not be called out on that statement.)

[Chris]

Considering that science is funded by the government, explaining the data of the models can easily be manipulated to benefit the ones who fund it.

This was well documented by Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

This is just another form of crony capitalism.

[Chris]

Chris, really? That is your best scientific argument? I had hoped for a more challenging rebuttal.

[Referring to your previous post, not this one.]

Still waiting for you to tell us how climate science is testable, falsifiable. Seems to me you're approaching science the way it was in the old days, as a religion determined by a few elite authorities.

[Chris]

You proposed an opinion that climate science is junk, i.e. 'pseudo-science'. And I have to prove the negative? That is not science 101, that is manure.

Now you're really going off the edge of inventing straw men, as I claimed no such thing. I merely pointed out it is not testable, not falsifiable. You need to prove a negative? What negative? For you to show how climate science is testable, falsifiable would be to prove a positive.

After many requests for you to do so I have to conclude you cannot.

But do go on with your straw men and ad hom.

[Chris]

What? I invented a straw man? Did you not read the ignorant post that I quoted? How is that 'inventing a straw man'? No offense, lynn, but come on, scientists are human. Some good, some bad, some heroic, and some shameful. But to claim that they are all subject to financial manipulation is a bit disingenuous. (And I certainly hope that you didn't seriously expect to not be called out on that statement.)

This is your invented straw man:

"this anti-science drivel- 'All science is American. The American government funds all science. The American government decides how the data should be manipulated. All American scientists are on the dole. Therefore, we shouldn't believe anything the scientists say.'"

No one here has argued that. You invented it just to knock it down. Whoopdeedoo.

[mogur]

From your original post-


There is the obsession with secret funding sources and with the ideological motivations of non-adherents, things the philosopher Karl Popper identified as telltale signs of a pseudoscience.

So, you did not post that climate science is a pseudoscience? I am bringing up straw men? This is your thread in which you are claiming that falsifiability is the only criteria that discriminates between real science and pseudoscience, yet you claim that I must provide the evidence to refute your contention. That is a negative. But, I will leave you to your assumptions that the government is manipulating scientific data, since you have provided no evidence to support your contention. And good luck finding any science valid since virtually all scientists are funded either by private vested interests or what you believe to be the vested interests of the government.

[Chris]

From your original post-



So, you did not post that climate science is a pseudoscience? I am bringing up straw men? This is your thread in which you are claiming that falsifiability is the only criteria that discriminates between real science and pseudoscience, yet you claim that I must provide the evidence to refute your contention. That is a negative. But, I will leave you to your assumptions that the government is manipulating scientific data, since you have provided no evidence to support your contention. And good luck finding any science valid since virtually all scientists are funded either by private vested interests or what you believe to be the vested interests of the government.

No, I did not, nor did the cited article you quote from. You are misrepresenting what that says.


(A) There is the obsession with secret funding sources and with the ideological motivations of non-adherents, (B) things the philosopher Karl Popper identified as telltale signs of a pseudoscience.

(A) refers not to scientists acting as scientists, for they would never engage in such poisonous character assassination. It refers to climate alarmists who are every bit as bad in that regard as deniers. (B) is Popper talking about such campy followers. The pseudoscience is what the media presents. The oversimplified nonsense I've seen argued so many times, that rise in CO2 causes rise in temps.

Nice shot in the dark on your part, you missed the mark.



Still waiting for you to make a clear, simple statement how climate science can be tested, falsified.

A science 101, nay, high school version of the scientific method:


The steps of the scientific method are to:

Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results


@ http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml


So how test it, what would falsify it?

[midcan5]

"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." Karl Popper


The things about global warming that fascinate me are two, one is the fact it has become a political debate, and two, the people who argue one way or the other know as much about weather/climate as they do about particle physics. It may just be, GW as we experience it, is cyclical. Who's to tell, none of us and no history exists back more than a few thousand years. A million years ago we did not even exist - at least not in our present argumentative form.


I have commuted by bicycle over twenty five years and I can say firsthand, the weather she is a changing. Now consider our forests and acid rain, our rivers and lakes and pollution. Why the ocean is so big no one could ever pollute it, weird here in New Jersey where I am today, pollution has often closed the beaches. Or consider Love Canal, or nuclear sites, waste dumps, smog. The idea that humans cannot destroy the earth is naive at best. Arguments solve nothing.


My take: even if GW is natural let's get our heads out of the ground and work to make the earth a good clean place for our children and their children. We spend lots on war let's spend on other things that create things. PS I too am a fan of Popper.


http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/larry_brilliant_makes_the_case_for_optimism.html


co2 demonstration. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ethicalman/2009/12/in_praise_of_scepticism.html

Time-lapse proof of extreme ice loss: http://www.ted.com/talks/james_balog_time_lapse_proof_of_extreme_ice_loss.h tml


http://blog.ted.com/2012/10/17/playlist-10-talks-that-show-why-politicians-need-to-focus-on-the-environment/
http://science.time.com/2013/01/29/the-scariest-environmental-fact-in-the-world/?iid=obnetwork


"Our knowledge can only be finite, while our ignorance must necessarily be infinite." Karl Popper


"It is not enough to ask, Will my act harm other people? Even if the answer is No, my act may still be wrong, because of its effects on other people. I should ask, Will my act be one of a set of acts that will together harm other people? The answer may be Yes. And the harm to others may be great." Derek Parfit

[Chris]

"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." Karl Popper


The things about global warming that fascinate me are two, one is the fact it has become a political debate, and two, the people who argue one way or the other know as much about weather/climate as they do about particle physics. It may just be, GW as we experience it, is cyclical. Who's to tell, none of us and no history exists back more than a few thousand years. A million years ago we did not even exist - at least not in our present argumentative form.


I have commuted by bicycle over twenty five years and I can say firsthand, the weather she is a changing. Now consider our forests and acid rain, our rivers and lakes and pollution. Why the ocean is so big no one could ever pollute it, weird here in New Jersey where I am today, pollution has often closed the beaches. Or consider Love Canal, or nuclear sites, waste dumps, smog. The idea that humans cannot destroy the earth is naive at best. Arguments solve nothing.


My take: even if GW is natural let's get our heads out of the ground and work to make the earth a good clean place for our children and their children. We spend lots on war let's spend on other things that create things. PS I too am a fan of Popper.


http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/larry_brilliant_makes_the_case_for_optimism.html


Time-lapse proof of extreme ice loss: http://www.ted.com/talks/james_balog_time_lapse_proof_of_extreme_ice_loss.h tml




http://blog.ted.com/2012/10/17/playlist-10-talks-that-show-why-politicians-need-to-focus-on-the-environment/
http://science.time.com/2013/01/29/the-scariest-environmental-fact-in-the-world/?iid=obnetwork



"Our knowledge can only be finite, while our ignorance must necessarily be infinite." Karl Popper


"It is not enough to ask, Will my act harm other people? Even if the answer is No, my act may still be wrong, because of its effects on other people. I should ask, Will my act be one of a set of acts that will together harm other people? The answer may be Yes. And the harm to others may be great." Derek Parfit



The things about global warming that fascinate me are two, one is the fact it has become a political debate, and two, the people who argue one way or the other know as much about weather/climate as they do about particle physics.

I know enough to know where the debate went south is where it went political, particularly in the hands of Gore, whom the scientific community has criticized.



My take: even if GW is natural let's get our heads out of the ground and work to make the earth a good clean place for our children and their children.

Not sure how to take this. If you mean change the earth, that's what we've been doing, and I'm not so sure it's any of it been good in that regard. If it's change man, well that may be well intended, but I don't think we're good at that either.


Those who promise us paradise on earth never produced anything but a hell. ~Karl Popper

[Chris]

Here's the kind of agitprop the OP addresses:


...Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wasted no time blaming the fire’s devastation on global warming. Though the senator from Nevada doesn’t usually discuss climate change in his press conferences, he addressed the issue twice in one week and called for more funding for the Forest Service to clear away the dry brush that fuels wildfires.

“Why are we having them? Because we have climate change. Things are different. The forests are drier, the winters are shorter, and we have these terrible fires all over the West,” Reid told Nevada reporters, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

Terrible fires all over the West? It’s true that both natural and manmade wildfires destroy millions of acres across the U.S. landscape every year. What Reid neglects to mention, however, is that the number of these fires has significantly declined in recent years. According to the National Interagency Fire Center, 96,358 wildland fires swept the nation in 2006. In 2009, the number had decreased to 78,792. In 2012, there were 67,774. By July 17 last year, 32,920 fires had burned through 3.7 million acres, while the number on the same date of this year has only reached 25,370, destroying 2 million acres.

Yet Reid continued to hammer the idea of climate change as the cause of some of the nation’s most devastating wildfires, commenting in a press conference only a day later that “Millions of acres have burned…They’re occurring all over. Why? Because the climate has changed. The winters are shorter, the summers are hotter.”

Reid called for more funding for the Forest Service to clear away dry brush and undergrowth. He has also mentioned bringing a bipartisan energy-efficiency bill to the floor.

Never mind the fact that the massive fire was started by a lightning strike on July 1 in Trout Canyon—a far cry from any manmade cause. Lightning fires cannot be attributed to any warming trend either: Throughout the early 2000s, the annual number of lightning fires in the U.S. was between 11,000 to 15,000. With a few intermittent increases, that number had dropped to 9,443 in 2012, and was as low as 7,164 in 2010....

@ Burning Man (http://spectator.org/archives/2013/07/31/burning-man)