Merged AGW without HADCRUT3

[Megalodon]

Still nothing of substance at all from the Anti-AGW crew.

Show me that any one of these things is true;

1. Earth is not warming.

2. CO2 is not a GHG.

3. CO2 is not increasing.

4. CO2 increase is not human-caused.

5. CO2 is a much weaker GHG than we believe.

6. The Sun is getting the appropriate amount hotter.

7. The Earth is getting the appropriate amount closer to the Sun.

If you can prove ANY one of the above, not only do you win the argument, but I certify to you that you will have an inside-track for a Nobel Prize. Hell, I will write the letter of nomination myself.

Seconded!

Any takers?

 

[Drysdale]

What point? that he doesn't know what he's arguing against, or that he doesn't know squat about science?



Yeah... the press is the way to go on scientific matters. The same press where you learn that vaccines cause autism, and evolution is just a theory, and a discredited one at that...

BTW, why don't you ask CoolSceptic or mhaze to falsify AGW?

???

I dont recall saying I depend on the press for scientific matters.
I stated there has been stories in the press about questionable issues relating to AGW that I read about.

It's your contention those stories are all false?

 

[DogB]

Dude, you realize that climatology is a science, right? Lomiller clearly accused you of citing people who haven't any background in "since".

Actually it was "climate since" which is obviously a more difficult field to specialise in.

Oh and BTW I agree with the general opinion. If it was the warmer’s intent to come across as petulant children in this thread; well done, goal achieved.

 

[DogB]

Seconded!

Any takers?

Seriously? You believe there's some sort of value in that list?

 

[Megalodon]

Oh and BTW I agree with the general opinion. If it was the warmer’s intent to come across as petulant children in this thread; well done, goal achieved.

Yes, we are petulant, and childish... but it's the other side that's arguing, among other inanities, that a scientific hypothesis cannot be falsified.

But the ratio of content-free posts seems to favour you guys. Always a good work shoveling straw...

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Oh and BTW I agree with the general opinion. If it was the warmer’s intent to come across as petulant children in this thread; well done, goal achieved.

Seconded.

 

[Megalodon]

Seriously? You believe there's some sort of value in that list?

I think that if you can show any of those things, you are on the fast-track for the Nobel, yes.

And I think that I already offered ways in which the most basic AGW hypothesis can be falsified, yet nobody came forward.

And I think nobody advanced a way in which the Hurst phenomenon hypothesis can be falsified.

But please keep the fluff coming... There's too much content in the thread as it is, and there's always place for the one-sided questions and comments of the on-the-fencers.

 

[DogB]

Yes, we are petulant, and childish... but it's the other side that's arguing, among other inanities, that a scientific hypothesis cannot be falsified.

CS has made it plain that he does not consider AGW a complete hypothesis. You can argue that point but unless there's some sort of international hypothesis registry, I think he's entitled to maintain his opinion. Your insistence that he may not just makes you look a little silly to be perfectly frank.

But the ratio of content-free posts seems to favour you guys. Always a good work shoveling straw...

Well somebody is shovelling something, that’s for sure.

 

[DogB]

I think that if you can show any of those things, you are on the fast-track for the Nobel, yes.

Fine. Irrelevant but fine.

And I think that I already offered ways in which the most basic AGW hypothesis can be falsified, yet nobody came forward.

You offered every possible way in which AGW may be falsified? Man you must be really smart!

Or did you just pointlessly pick some sitting ducks like Ben did?

And I think nobody advanced a way in which the Hurst phenomenon hypothesis can be falsified.

Maybe the reason is that it’s so pointlessly trivial that nobody bothered?

All you have to do is prove (in a statistically robust manner) that the apparent clustering that defines the Hurst phenomenon is in no way different to a random noise pattern. Do that and it’s falsified. Happy?

But please keep the fluff coming... There's too much content in the thread as it is, and there's always place for the one-sided questions and comments of the on-the-fencers.

Yes we wouldn’t want to reduce the insult to data ratio would we?

 

[BenBurch]

Seven trivial things to prove. None of you deniers capable of proving EVEN one of them???? Come on, so us you have something other than bad right-wing blogs to fall back on.

 

[lomiller]

Harry Lins has a PhD in climatology. .

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?as...&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdts=5&hl=en


some stuff on run-off, nothing relevant to the physic of global warming. Definitely not a quality source. once again it's clear you are simply grasping for people willing to support your beliefs.

 

[lomiller]

Oh right, you judge the quality of a scientist's work on his publication record, which must be "spectacular" as opposed to "not bad".

What's the mystery? if you are going to claim someone is an expert, they need to be able to show some relevant expertise. the people you are looking to fail utterly on that front. You woo-woo's always do this, try to call nobodies top experts in the field when they are nothing of the sort

 

[DogB]

What's the mystery? if you are going to claim someone is an expert, they need to be able to show some relevant expertise. the people you are looking to fail utterly on that front. You woo-woo's always do this, try to call nobodies top experts in the field when they are nothing of the sort

Perhaps you could then name a 'top expert' in the Hurst phenomenon?

 

[Megalodon]

Fine. Irrelevant but fine.

Irrelevant to what, exactly? If you're you saying that the list is irrefutable, than there's no point in this discussion; if you're saying that it is refutable, please go ahead, we're listening (or reading).

You offered every possible way in which AGW may be falsified? Man you must be really smart!

Another one who can't read his own language... And doesn't bother to read the thread.

Or did you just pointlessly pick some sitting ducks like Ben did?

What would be your choice, DogB? How would you falsify AGW?

All you have to do is prove (in a statistically robust manner) that the apparent clustering that defines the Hurst phenomenon is in no way different to a random noise pattern. Do that and it’s falsified. Happy?

So your saying that the way to falsify the hypothesis that the Hurst phenomenon is causing GW is to prove there's no Hurst phenomenon. And I'm the one picking sitting ducks?

But I should've explained better. I was assuming that the Hurst phenomenon had been unequivocally determined, to humour CoolSceptic. How do you falsify the hypothesis that it is responsible by the observed GW?

Yes we wouldn’t want to reduce the insult to data ratio would we?

Touché... maybe I should also start with the veiled insults, slander and passive-aggressive bs. It would make for a much better discussion.

 

[lomiller]

Perhaps you could then name a 'top expert' in the Hurst phenomenon?

Nice try, but we are not debating the existence of the hurst phenomenon we are debating climate systems.

 

[a_unique_person]

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?as...&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdts=5&hl=en


some stuff on run-off, nothing relevant to the physic of global warming. Definitely not a quality source. once again it's clear you are simply grasping for people willing to support your beliefs.

And his whole paper is a pile BS anyway. I can tell you, the water people in Australia have already raised the white flag, all large cities are putting in desal plants.

 

[DogB]

Irrelevant to what, exactly? If you're you saying that the list is irrefutable, than there's no point in this discussion; if you're saying that it is refutable, please go ahead, we're listening (or reading).

Some of those points are irrefutable (I’m thinking 2,3,4,6&7). 1 and 5 are really, really complex questions. If either one of those was easy to disprove do you think we would be having this conversation?

My point is that it’s hardly an extensive list.

Another one who can't read his own language... And doesn't bother to read the thread.

Throwing stones? you already admitted your explanations need work (see below).

What would be your choice, DogB? How would you falsify AGW?

Actually I’m somewhat partial to Tamino’s bet. It isn’t completely conclusive but it’s a good start.

So to formalise it. A significant and sustained reduction in global temperatures without a corresponding reduction in CO2 levels would at least cast significant doubts on the theory.

So your saying that the way to falsify the hypothesis that the Hurst phenomenon is causing GW is to prove there's no Hurst phenomenon. And I'm the one picking sitting ducks?

Why not? You asked. I told you it was trivial.

But I should've explained better. I was assuming that the Hurst phenomenon had been unequivocally determined, to humour CoolSceptic. How do you falsify the hypothesis that it is responsible by the observed GW?

Well assuming you have the Hurst phenomenon well defined then the hypothesis should have predictive abilities. Thus it should be trivial to run some hindcasting and check it. If you don’t have it well defined then you are correct, it would be challenging to falsify other than by the trivial method I outlined above.

Touché... maybe I should also start with the veiled insults, slander and passive-aggressive bs. It would make for a much better discussion.

Hey, you laid the ground rules.

 

[BenBurch]

Was DogB seriously saying my list was not a punch-list of the things you need to falsify AGW?

I don't suppose he had the wit to provide his own list?

 

[DogB]

And his whole paper is a pile BS anyway. I can tell you, the water people in Australia have already raised the white flag, all large cities are putting in desal plants.

Because our population is growing (you might have noticed) and new dams and recycling are politically unacceptable. What's left?

 

[DogB]

Nice try, but we are not debating the existence of the hurst phenomenon we are debating climate systems.

Are you suggesting that any climatologist should be considered an expert in this field?