That’s not how science works, it’s the people proposing the theory that must use data/evidence to prove the theory.
I’ll admit to the models being accurate when their predictions start showing up in the data over natural variation and the long-term trend in sea level rise.
You need to define “appreciable” numerically before your prediction will have any value.LeafByNiggle:
I predict that the graphs for temperature, sea level, storm intensity, storm frequency, etc will show no appreciable change in their slopes over the next 20 years.
That may not be how science works, but it is how debates about science work. We have just seen how predictions of climate disasters have been used as evidence that the warnings are unjustified. (“Wolf, Wolf”, remember). So it is only fair to subject your position to the same jeapordy. But I understand why you would be reluctant.LeafByNiggle:
That’s not how science works, it’s the people proposing the theory that must use data/evidence to prove the theory.
Please express your confidence numerically so that years from now it might actually be checked.
I am shocked at your response, how you conveniently sidestep my expectation we should rely upon the scientific method.
The models have already shown themselves to be junk
You are not using the scientific method. Why should I?LeafByNiggle:
I am shocked at your response, how you conveniently sidestep my expectation we should rely upon the scientific method.
That was not the question. I am asking what future measurement would it take to cause you to be concerned that the warnings are warranted? If there is no possible future event that would convince you, then you have indeed abandoned the scientific method.
You don’t get to ignore the scientific method when talking about science, this isn’t your personal playroom where you get to make the rules visitors must follow.
Theo, in the scientific method, we observe, then from those observations we form a hypothesis. Then we make more observations to see if they support the hypothesis or not. You have highlighted what you say is a failure in that effort by climate scientists because the subsequent measurements do not support the hypothesis. But you also have a hypothesis, do you not? That hypothesis is that disastrous climate change will not happen in the near future. All I am asking is for you to subject your hypothesis to the same scrutiny that you are giving to the climate scientists’ hypothesis. If you are unwilling to do that, I can only conclude you are not very confident in your hypothesis. I can only conclude that you want to keep your hypothesis vague so that it only applies to the past and can never be tested like the predictions of the climate scientists are tested. All you have to do is to exactly specify what your hypothesis is so that it can be unambiguously checked in the future. Are you willing to submit to the scientific method or not?LeafByNiggle:
You don’t get to ignore the scientific method when talking about science, this isn’t your personal playroom where you get to make the rules visitors must follow.
If you can’t respond to my clear comments, don’t respond.
Again, it’s ridiculous to pull a number out of the air as my “it’s real temp”. I’ll believe the models when they can show they are accurate, definitely not projecting overwarming 100% over actual measurement.
I’ve told you at least 50 times that I believe CO2 is a GHG and is contributing to warming. What is not known is the net impact, not whether there is an impact.
This is piffle. You’ve asked me to guess, and I did. Expressing my guess numerically doesn’t make it a scientific guess. There has been no past correlation of predictions with CO2. Temperatures haven’t gone up with increasing CO2; hurricanes have not increased with increasing CO2; sea levels have not increased with increasing CO2, etc etc. What’s past is prelude; the future will not show what has not been observed in the past.
I did not ask you for a guess. I asked what future evidence would qualify as cause for concern about climate change. If you say no possible future observations would convince you, that is unscientific. (As you know, all scientific theories must be falsifiable in principle.) The recent IPCC warning that you referenced above said that global temperatures may rise by 2.7 degrees F by 2030. You said that it was a good thing they made the time frame so short so that people will see how false these claims are when nothing like that happens. So let me ask you, if global temperatures do rise to 2.7 F above pre-industrial levels by 2030, will you be convinced? Or will you find some other reason to deny the seriousness of the warnings?LeafByNiggle:
This is piffle. You’ve asked me to guess, and I did. Expressing my guess numerically doesn’t make it a scientific guess. There has been no past correlation of predictions with CO2. Temperatures haven’t gone up with increasing CO2; hurricanes have not increased with increasing CO2; sea levels have not increased with increasing CO2, etc etc. What’s past is prelude; the future will not show what has not been observed in the past.
Bears repeating.
Look at the real line … and compare & contrast with all the proven false hypotheses.
I beg your pardon??? Really???
Science is about data.
You are wrong. Science is about using data to understand our world and predict how it will respond.LeafByNiggle:
Science is about data.
PERIOD.
If you have bad data, then you not are not going to understand anything.
Good data is the starting point, but my request is still valid. What data would convince you that future climate change is a real threat?LeafByNiggle:
If you have bad data, then you not are not going to understand anything.