straight and too the point.

I wonder if they'll tackle this one next? Seems like some here might enjoy the discussions here also

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/

The great thing about the idea of human-driven climate change is that it's falsifiable. We've been warned about the alleged danger for decades and haven't taken the steps which would solve the problem, should it exist as people say. If after a few decades more of inaction the sky hasn't fallen it would be obvious there was never a crisis.

Invictus is hillarious, if typically stupid. In fact, the predictions dating back to the 1890s have been pretty close, if not an underestimate of the rate of change. Falsifiable? THe professionals seems to believe otherwise. I'm wondering, do you go to your automechanic for your dental work, or do you go to a dentist? I tend to go with the professionals who know what they are talking about.

I'm guessing you couldn't even explain the greenhouse effect.

Since you don't seem to know what falsifiable means there's no reason to keep talking to you.

"The great thing about the idea of human-driven climate change is that it's falsifiable. We've been warned about the alleged danger for decades and haven't taken the steps which would solve the problem, should it exist as people say. If after a few decades more of inaction the sky hasn't fallen it would be obvious there was never a crisis. "

And what happens if it does turn out the majority scientific opinion was right? Should we just wait to see if the Earth warms by a couple of degrees, and wait to see if in fact warming the Earth by a couple of degrees does in significantly alter the Earth's climate? Wait to see if billions of people are adversely affected. Wait until we reach the point of no return?Is this the most rational option? Wait until we are absolutely certain?

If so this seems a pretty strange way of making decisions. We don't adopt this policy of "absolute certainty" for other major decisions. By the same argument why do we spend money on defense. We don't know for certain that other powers might pose a significant threat. Surely if certainty is our criteria then America (for example) should wait until another powerful country declares war before building a military. But no, America knows from experience that from time to time threats do appear. The government commits to spend trillions on defense based on probabilities. Sometimes they get right, sometimes the decisions made and the money is less than optimal. But whatever it is better to spend some money on defense than do nothing at all.

Humans have to make decisions based on uncertainty all the time. Any decision based on a analysis of a complex situation is probabilistic. And climate is complex. It is impossible to make precise predictions. This does not mean that climate change theory is inherently unscientific. Climate change theory is sum product of lot of little theories, and within those theories there are elements that are testable. But when we put it all together the best we can say is given what we know at this point in time that this is the trend we expect to see over the next 20, 50, 100 years, and this is what we expect the likely outcome of the changes, and this is what we should probably do about it. Given what we know now.

We can't sit around for the next 50 years waiting for climate change to be falsified or verified (beyond doubt). If you want to falsify climate change theory you need to look at the pieces that make up the theory. For example, the most fundamental element of climate theory is the behavior of greenhouse gases. Demonstrate that C02 does not absorb infrared radiation and you can dismiss the entire theory straight way. Demonstrate that there is no historic correlation between C02 levels in the atmosphere and the earths temperature and you have falsified AGW. Discover another factor that is responsible for the present warming of the Earth and you will invalidate the current theory. But right now this is not the case. Presently the facts speak for AGW and there is no credible rival theory.

If you reject AGW, what was your process. By what process did you arrive at your conclusion, and what makes that process better than the process by which the majority of relevant clients and major scientific institutions around the world came to the opposite conclusion. What makes you think you know more than the experts?

By the way if you do think you know better - you are almost certainly deluding yourself.

Once upon a time(s) there were clear scientific consensuses among the experts that there was no link between hospital hygiene and childbirth-related mortality, that the sun revolved around the earth, that the universe has existed forever in a steady and unchanging state, that nothing could be smaller than an atom, that there was a direct link between melanin levels in the skin and intelligence, and that global cooling was going to kill us all.

The problem with 99.9% consensuses is that they are generally not arrived at through honest means, but by coercion. Like Martin Luther denouncing simony and the sales of indulgences, anyone denouncing that kind of "obvious" orthodoxy inevitably faces mortal peril (professionally, if not physically), making the "consensus" self-sustaining even if it later becomes obviously wrong

AGW may be a reality. I do not know with certainty either way. But when I see it used as an excuse for new taxes, regulations, and controls, the dire predictions from AGWers from 10-15 years ago all proven false, and all dissenting opinion stifled so thoroughly as to produce a 99.999% consensus, I cannot help but be intensely skeptical that this issue is all about 5% science and 95% politics.

typo... Not relevant *clients... I meant... relevant *scientists

Tolstoy I think a distinction needs to made between what scientist believe about a phenomenon before it has been study, or early on its study, and they believe years later after a lot of study. Let look at your examples:

1. scientists no link between hospital hygiene and childbirth-related mortality

The only reason believed this is that it had not been studied. The germ theory of disease was not accepted until the second half of the 19th century.

2. the sun revolved around the earth

People believed this in ancient long before the scientific method had been developed.

3. the universe has existed forever in a steady and unchanging state

Is the early days of cosmology yes this was believed. And it a was a reasonable assumption given the lack of contrary evidence at the time. But new facts overturned this theory. The time to reject AGW will be if and when new facts come to light.

3. that nothing could be smaller than an atom

Once again we're talking about a belief before the phenomenon had been studied properly.

4. melanin levels in the skin and intelligence

Once again, this belief was not the result of many years of intensive dedicate research by thousands of scientists.

5. that global cooling was going to kill us all.

There was NEVER a consensus about this. Why are you perpetrating this myth? A few scientists proposed a theory that global cooling was occurring. It was news worthy and picked up by Time magazine in the 1970s. Scientist propose theories all the time. That is their job. But most theories lead no where. One study might show something, but then the result cannot be replicated. But you can't compare this to AGW.

"The problem with 99.9% consensuses is that they are generally not arrived at through honest means, but by coercion."

This might be true in North Korea. It is certainly not true for science itself. Scientists are humans and like humans can flawed. But this does not mean we should reject science completely.

To quote Richard Dawkins:
"Science is based upon publicly checkable evidence. It has all the virtues of standard methodology laid out in textbooks by philosophers of science. Testability, evidential support, precision, quantifiability, consistency, repeatability, universality, progressiveness, independence of cultural media."

I gave a few examples above of how AGW could be falsified. Demonstrate the CO2 does not absord infrared ratiation and you have disproved AGW. The consensus will quickly change.

"AGW may be a reality. I do not know with certainty either way. "

Is that what require before you are willing to vote for you tax to be spent on mitigating AGW. Certainty? What would it take to make you certain?

sorry about all the typos and missing words above... I hope you can figure out what I am trying to say.

... and that should read... why are you *perpetuating* this myth

@spyman,

"'3. the universe has existed forever in a steady and unchanging state'

"Is the early days of cosmology yes this was believed. And it a was a reasonable assumption given the lack of contrary evidence at the time."

It wasn't especially. Just because there's no evidence *against* something does not mean scientists should go around saying it has scientific support. That theory was much more driven by philosophy and assumptions than by actual evidence.

I think you're missing the broader point, anyway. It's all very well to say, "These theories were all corrected eventually, and so will AGW be if and when the evidence moves the consensus that way." But until that happened, people who didn't believe in an eternal universe were mocked, with the weight of science; yet they were (very probably) right.

Scientific theories *are* subject to revision, and that *is* a good thing about science, but it's also a good reason not to revile the skeptic. Consensus has a decidedly mixed track record in science, especially when not backed by clear and strong arguments (which usually don't exist when it's consensus, and not the arguments, that are appealed to). It's not a tool that should be used to bludgeon doubters in the absence of other arguments; and indeed, doing so severely misses the point of how science works, anyway.

"I think you're missing the broader point, anyway"

Actually I think you are missing the broader point of what I was saying in reply to Tolstoy. The point I was making is there is difference between the status of a theory before it has been studied and after it has been studied. All the examples that Tolstoy offered were ideas that were held early on or before they had been studied.

Sure the steady state theory did not have anything going for it other than the fact it was considered the default. (I am not an expert on the history of cosmology so I'll take you word for that, but it sounds about right).

"Scientific theories *are* subject to revision, and that *is* a good thing about science, but it's also a good reason not to revile the skeptic"

I do not revile the skeptic. I have said repeatedly in various threads in this forum that there are a handful of scientists who are conducting independent research who have alternate theories - and they are entitled to follow independent lines of research. I do not think they should suppressed. Take Richard Linzen for example at MIT. He has an alternate theory about the relationship of CO2 and climate change. I hope is right and that he convinces the rest of the scientific community IF he is right, and it will all turn out that we had nothing to worry about.

Richard Linzen has his own reasons for believing what he believes. He is qualified to hold an alternative belief. By I as a layman am not capably of properly examining his data and his theories.

So if you reject AGW against the weight of the consensus you need a decent reason. Most of the reasons given by your standard denier are non-nonsensical.

"All the examples that Tolstoy offered were ideas that were held early on or before they had been studied."

Cosmology had been studied plenty by the time the steady-state theory was propounded.

Anyway, as to the rest of your post -- fine, I'm glad you are not opposing skeptical points of view. It certainly seemed in your earlier post that you were citing the existence of partial scientific consensus as a sufficient cause to take specific actions, but I presumably just misread that.

I would only add that the pressures and impacts of money on a study also constitute a field of study that can be undertaken and understood, and knowing something about it can cause concern about consensus climate science even without knowing a great deal of climate science.

Out of interest semck83 - what do you think we should do about AGW?

Richard Lindzen believes that we should wait another 50 years or so until various uncertainties have been cleared up. He believes that human actions have a small impact on climate, but that what we are presently seeing is natural variation, and predicts that the world will start cooling in about 20 years.

Others argue that the balance of evidence lies firmly on the side of AGW (even though there are still uncertainties) if we wait 20 or 50 years risk of taking action too late, and that we risk suffering adverse consequences.

Given the balance of evidence, and given the stakes, the rational thing to do is to take action now. If it turns out that the science was wrong, what have we lost? Some money - but at the same time we will have developed some interesting new technologies. Not a disaster.

If it turns out that the theory of AGW was mostly right and we don't do anything then it will be much more expensive to mitigate the effects of AGW.

"too late" what does that even mean? All of the chicken-little-the-sky-is-falling-(and catching on fire!!!) prediction of the global warming alarmists have been totally discredited by reality.

You know that increasingly horrible hurricane seasons we are supposed to have? Uhhhhh....yeah....not really panning out (pretty much NO hurricanes in the Atlantic hurrican season this past year...). The coastal regions flooding? Yeah...not happening. The dire predictions of food shortages....uhhhh...yeah....not happening; in fact, *reasonable* people that believe in AGW predict *increases* in growing seasons will be perhaps better for growers...lengthening seasons and pushing farming availability to northern regions that currently have short season.

So honestly...who in the right fucking mind actually believes that "if we don't do something NOW....(unspecified scary prediction)" since the alarmists have already been making predictions 20 years ago that by now humanity was supposed to be on its last legs.

Good lord...what a bunch of gullible *fools*.

Believe in AGW if you want...apparently that can't be stopped, becuase religious zealots will always exist (and you alarmists ARE more religion than you are science...since evidence of reality crushes your religion prophecy...)...but why do you fools believe the paranoid dramatic predictions that consistenly fail to come true? It's a psychosis...

"too late" what does that even mean? "

Sometimes when we face problems, the longer we fail to address those problem, the worse the problem becomes, and the cost of failing to address the problem is great the cost of addressing the problem.

For example if you have tooth decay, and you put off going to the dentist, instead of simply needing a filling you could end up with a root canal.

That is what too late means.

"All of the chicken-little-the-sky-is-falling-(and catching on fire!!!) prediction of the global warming alarmists have been totally discredited by reality. "

Scientist have always known that the consequences of climate cannot be exactly known. Those predictions you say failed to come true, were "worst case scenarios". Worst case scenarios tend to attract more attention than best case scenarios.

The fact that certain worst case scenarios did not come true does not invalidate AGW. Climate change is the sum product of lot of little theories. Because of the complexity of climate it is impossible to make precise predictions. The best you can expect is that a long term trend will be apparent. It is conceivable that in the long term AGW will be invalidated (but unlikely considering the balance of evidence). In the short term if you want to invalidate AGW (that is shift the balance of evidence) you would need to invalidate one or more of the component theories that make up AGW.

spyman - i know what "too late" means for real problems...such as tooth decay. When it comes to the consistently WRONG predictions of doom coming from the AGW crowd, I want to know what all the parnaoid fools actually think is going to happen.

Don't any of them find it ironic that the very hysterical mouthpieces of the movement themselves don't live a life they advocate, as they fly around the world spewing unnecesary CO2 in to the air to have "conferneces" when the technology exists to meet in cyber-space? You would think these scare-mongors would be a little more cutting edge...After all, they *supposedly* have the technology to model the global climate for the next 100 years....but they don't know how to tele-conference?

As for 'worst case scenarios"...no, these 'worst case scenarios" are *always* put forth to the general populous as the thing that *must* and *will* happen. Ask any AGW dance monkey around here what will happen if AGW is right and they will list off all these "worst case" predictions as necesary truth, as the inevitable outcomes.....ice caps melt, global flooding, millions dead, food shortages, extreme weather (and no, we don't have *any* indications that weather is getting worse or more extreme), etc etc etc. Only this shit never comes even close to being true

In short, yes, climate is realllllllly complex....meaning that in truth they don't know shit about what is going on, which is why every year or two we get vastly revised models and prediction, and brand new theories to explain "where the heat is hiding" and such nonsense.

They are consistently *confounded* by how wrong their predictions are, and constantly revising their "models" to account for what they don't know. It sounds like science....in truth, it's video game making for research dollars...little else. But like any good video game, it holds the attention of the buyer. Grand theft Auto V hasn't got jack shit on the IPPC game makers bilking their millions upon millions from the quivering-in-fear tax payers...

Krellin, okay so worst case scenarios have not come true. Do have you have any reasons to believe that AGW is false, or is that the entire basis of your argument.

Actually to be fair from what I can tell you have three main arguments:

1. Worst case scenarios have not come true.
2. Climate is so complex that we can't claim to understand it (or as you put it "they don't know shit about what is going on"
3. Climate change science is corrupt.

Would that be a fair summary?

"Out of interest semck83 - what do you think we should do about AGW?

"Richard Lindzen believes that we should wait another 50 years or so until various uncertainties have been cleared up. He believes that human actions have a small impact on climate, but that what we are presently seeing is natural variation, and predicts that the world will start cooling in about 20 years."

I think that if the more alarmist (and mainstream) view is correct about AGW, then the chances that we could actually arrest it by non-catastrophic economic changes at this point are virtually nil. So I agree with Freeman Dyson and several others that we should continue trying to encourage development and resist dramatic economic changes, because if disastrous change comes, then technology and a strong economy are what we will need to adapt to it (and we probably can't prevent it now anyway).

In practice, this agrees with Lindzen's attitude; and given the above analysis, I think his points make a lot of sense.