The Final Straw

Any hypothesis must have some test that can falsify it. Without such a test anything can be stated and nobody can demonstrate it to be false.
This seems to a major problem for AGW “science”, as these AGW climotologists are now stating that colder temperatures are due to AGW — thus, in effect, they are claiming that AGW can’t be falsified.
It doesn’t wash and it isn’t science — perhaps, that’s why many people call AGW a religious belief — you have to take it on faith — many people are not willing to do that and insist on holding it to the standards of Science.
(This is also a significant problem for “modern” astronomy.)
Dr. Svalgaard, I’m still waiting for you to lay out those tests which could falsify the hypotheticals you claim to be reality. Without those tests, it’s pointless to go on for the reasons given above.
Regarding the WMAP paper, it’s conclusionary with little causal reasoning. It’s basically a paper that makes conclusions that people want to hear — it’s easy to state conclusions that people want to hear because they aren’t likely to challenge them, are they?
Dr. Svalgaard, you’ve heard of the concept of free parameters, I’m sure. Other people call those fudge factors — you can’t have “precision” with free or open parameters — the so-called “big bang” has a number of them.
“Eddington calculated the minimum temperature any body in space would cool to, given that it is immersed in the radiation of distant starlight. With no adjustable parameters, he obtained 3°K (later refined to 2.8°K), essentially the same as the observed, so-called “background”, temperature. A similar calculation, although with less certain accuracy, applies to the limiting temperature of intergalactic space because of the radiation of galaxy light. So the intergalactic matter is like a “fog”, and would therefore provide a simpler explanation for the microwave radiation, including its blackbody-shaped spectrum.” — thus, no reason to resort to a “beginning” to explain present observations & measurements.
In other words, present observations & measurements record present physical conditions — not something that supposedly happened 13 odd billion years ago.
Dr. Svalgaard wrote of the WMAP paper: “Read it. And be awed. I am.”
Then you are easily awed. I’m not.

Sorry James F. Evans
In order for me to answer your question it would have to be a lot more specific. What specific inferences are you refering to? I suspect Lief doesn’t know either.
I am not attacking you, I think the way our view of the universe has eviolved over the last 50 years seems unlikely. It isn’t a good explanation it’s only the best we can do at this time.

Dr. Svalgaard asked me question or should I say made a demand: “The current measurements have none (free parameters). Find one for me. If you cannot, I take it that you concede there is none.”
My answer was incomplete.
As I stated, the observations & measurements I have no objection to, only the inferences, and upon demand, I provided an example of a free parameter.
But there are two more free parameters that are central to the so-called “big bang”.
What are they?
Both “dark” matter and “dark” energy are free parameters. Both are only inferences, neither has been directly observed & measured — without those two free parameters the “big bang” fails. Neither are actual observations & measurements of the WMAP paper, only inferences.
What do I mean by free parameter?
Proponents of the so-called “big bang” are free to sprinkle “dark” matter and “dark” energy where they like or need to in order to make the hypothesis work — essentially pixie dust — to make the hypothesis viable.
So, for the third time, Dr. Svalgaard what tests do we apply to both “dark” matter and “dark” energy to falsify them?
Dr. Svalgaard, this is a direct question, the failure to answer exposes the “big bang” as one big complicated charade.
If there is none, then they fail to be scientific and the whole “big bang” fails by its own weight of unfalsifiable free parameters.
And, please don’t attempt to say they exist without question, both have never been directly observed & measured. If they can’t be falsified — they are non-scientific hypotheticals.
Even Wikipedia identifies “dark” energy thus: “In physical cosmology, astronomy and celestial mechanics, dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to increase the rate of expansion of the universe.”
Wikipedia is friendly to astronomy, however, it isn’t so friendly to the sceptics’ position on AGW. Even so, Wikipedia states that “dark” energy is “hypothetical”. So-called “dark” matter is no less hypothetical.
Now, some readers might say, “Evans, you’re hijacking this thread, go away.”
But I will show you why it’s relevant in two ways: First, originally astrophysics was used as a justification for Man-made global warming.
How so?
James Hansen of NASA provided the Venus greenhouse analogy, saying that Venus was Earth’s twin and that Venus was very hot (over 500 degrees Fahrenheit) due to a runaway greenhouse effect where CO2 built up and caused the planet to heat up (Venus atmosphere is over 80% CO2), even though Venus and Earth’s atmospheres are completely different. Hansen promoted the analogy that Venus’ temperature was a preview of Earth if CO2 was allowed to build up, thus, astronomy was intimately involved from the beginning with the whole Man-made global warming scam.
From my experience, most astronomers whole heartly signed up for AGW. After all, the hypothesis was derived from their discipline.
Second, and more specifically to the “big bang”. A large part of AGW is infering what the temperature was like in the past before there were thermometers to measure temperature or thermometers were in wide-spread use. Going back literally thousands of years. Everybody knows about the Mann Siberian “tree ring” fiasco (that’s being kind), which was an attempt to infer temperature. And, how the AGW climotologists attempted to make the Medival Warm Period disappear.
In essence, AGW climotolgists were making infernces about what the past was like and claiming it as fact.
The so-called “big bang” is an attempt to do the exact same thing: Making inferences about what the past was like and claiming it as fact. Perhaps, that is why so many astronomers are supportive of the AGW hypothesis because they recognized a kindred endeavor and know the theory derived from their discpline.
There are differences, of course, there is much more evidence of what the temperature was like in the Medival Warm Period, than whether the Universe started in a “big bang” from a “primeval atom” some 13 odd billion years ago.
But the principles are the same, make observations & measurements and attempt to make inferences about the past and claim it as fact.
Science has a good idea of the Medival warm period from contemporaneous written accounts. No such evidence exists for when the Universe started, if it started at all. Some things Man will never know and must accept — when or if the Universe “began” is one of them. Man is not privileged to know. It is folly and arrogance to insist Man must know — accepting the wonder of the unknown is sometimes all Man can do — there is nothing wrong with that. Claiming otherwise is wilful delusion.

To Peter Hearndon et al; in New Zealand, as an example, the Precautionary Principle is properly employed in using various branches of science to research the ability of experimental structures to withstand earthquakes and applying the properly validated results of such research to provide input to building codes and thus to make buildings safe from most earthquakes.
Earthquakes are an omnipresent threat in many Pacific Rim countries, witness the recent Haitian and Chilean ‘quakes. The death toll in Haiti was horrific because the Haitian econmy has not been able to use building methods suitable for such and area: the death toll in Cile was much lower due to a preponderance of buildings constructed to a suitable building code. CAGW has NOT been proved to be a clear and present danger, so the Precautionary Principle does not apply.
I do not object to governments using the Precautionary Principle when a real threat exists; I object strongly when public servants say, but cannot prove, a major threat exists but insist I must continue to trust them and that us taxpayers should stay silent because we are ignorant of ‘the science’. Worse, when politicians who patently don’t understand the proper use of the Precautionary Principle and call me a ‘flat earther’ because I demand proof, I have to believe that there is a major problem with the so-called ‘science’. When I see major tax initiatives put in place, demands to dismantle the infrastructure of an industrial and entreprenurial base in society that has wrought a high standard of living and demands that I must subsidise less industrialised countries who have squandered their own natural resources, I suspect there is more than ‘bad science’ happening.

“One long ad hom, science content zero.
When will you people get off the backs of people like Dr Jones and leave them to get on with their research?
Incidentally, who are you Mr Mosher? If you think it’s right that everything about Dr Jones should be public knowledge because it might cost us billion if he’s wrong so his science needs infinite testing, then it’s also the case that if you’re wrong it might also cost us billions and so everything about you should be public knowledge.
Therefore I demand you place on public record all your scientifc notes, workings, jotting, e mails, code (every scrap) and papers for the last ten years. All of it, everything, every last word , figure and number. If you don’t do that i will be demanding it by FOI and I wont desisit, I’ll shower you with FOI request for a decade.
Get it?”
At the risk of feeding a troll.
Pete, Mr. Mosher makes the informal case that Professor Jones (a publicly funded scientist subject to specific laws in the UK) perpetrated fraud (at worst) or at best played games with the dissemination of proprietary data (which seems clear by Professor Jones own hand) AND his description of what was or was not his “practice”.
After watching the professor before the Select Committee in it’s entirety after having read the e-mails in question at length, it was clear to me that he was playing games with the truth.
As objective evidence, with a strait face he claimed disclosure and transparancy while holding a 20+ year document in his hand. The information contained therein was clearly “dated”, and did not represent timely transparency or disclosure.
He also “fudged” the truth when he responded to an inquiry indicating that the data he used was available from the US. Of course that data is available in the states just as the words of the English language are in the dictionary. It doesn’t allow for replication of results unless one can identify:
1) Which of the dataset elements were included
2) Which of the dataset elements were excluded
3) What methodology was used to combine the dataset elements and in what sequence (e.g. the infamous Fortran code)
4) Were there instances of unintended exclusion
5) Were there instances of unintended redundancy
All of these factors play into why curious minds would want to have FULL DISCLOSURE of all of the above which Professor Jones clearly did not disclose and did not wish to disclose. After a reading of the e-mails, I’m not convinced he could replicate his own results if his life depended on it.
You can agree or disagree with Mr. Mosher’s assertions. A clever barrister could I’m sure make a persuasive argument to a jury (and at this rate, Mr. Jones may need a clever barrister).
You put forward a perversion of “golden rules” principles. There is no reciprocal obligation between Mr. Mosher and Professor Jones. Professor Jones is part of a plan (whether conspiracy or coincidence) to scare the world’s population into spending TRILLIONS UPON TRILLIONS (not the chump change Billions you reference) on upsetting the economies of developed and developing countries, and seeking to stifle development in the Third World in exchange for promises of “wealth redistribution” so self-important do-gooders can take pictures of peasants in those same lands while on holiday.
Your “risk management” philosophy is absurd. I happen to be a professional risk manager. Your “innocence” may be cute to some, but for grown-ups it’s absolutely insane for you to make a strait faced claim that (and I’ll paraphrase) “Jones/Hansen/Mann/Gore may be right, so who are you to question”. By your logic we MUST go down this crazy bunny trail on blind faith, because the aformentioned “High Priests” of “climate science” say we should.
There may indeed be SOME risks associated with Climate Change. A more measured approach would be to look for empiracle evidence of actual cause and effect vs. their claims that (and again I paraphrase) “we tried to find natural causes and couldn’t relate them, so IT MUST BE MAN MADE”. How laughable that they say that nonsense with a strait face and the good little sheeple believe them.
There are ABSOLUTE RISKS associated with a hasty migration from fossil fuels, and similarly with the use of Climate Change Alarmism as a vehicle for greater “Global Governance”. Those are risks many of us aren’t prepared to accept absence a compelling, overwhelming, beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt certainty that the rewards of mitigation of so called AGW exceed the risks of the status quo.
Many of us WILL QUESTION AGW and it’s advocates because we are thinking human beings with curious minds. Those who are blind sheep are free to follow the IPCC shepherds and their cohorts, we will not.
GET IT???

Dr. Svalgaard, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.
Dr. Svalgaard states: “You do not seem to know that dark matter and dark are directly observed and measured. You cannot falsify measurements.”
Dr. Svalgaard, in your own paragraph where you claim that so-called “dark” matter and “dark” energy have been directly observed & measured, you fail to offer or provide any direct observations & measurements of same.
Dr. Svalgaard expects readers to take his assertion at face value with no supporting evidence. That’s not persuasive or , frankly, scientific.
So-called “dark” matter & energy are well known to be only inferred by indirect observation & measurement — so they are a hypothesis.
No direct observations & measurments of “dark” matter and “dark” energy have been made, not withstanding Dr. Svalgaard’s protests to the contrary.
Please provide a peer-reviewed paper’s quote that affirmatively states there is direct observation & measurement of so-called “dark” matter and “dark” energy.
If not, the inescapable conclusion is that Dr. Svalgaard statement is false.
And, so far, Dr. Svalgaard refuses to answer my question as to whether there is a test to falsify these hypothesis.
Dr. Svalgaard, states, “…the quasar called SDSS J1148+5251 at a redshift (z) of 6.43 as it was 13 billion years ago.”
Even if “redshift” is a correct inference of distance (which Halton C. Arp persuasively falsifies), for the sake of argument, the quasar at that distance, and, thus, time in the past (based on the time light takes to travel), actually falsifies the so-called “big bang” because it is a fully formed astronomical object at a time when according to the “big bang” hypothesis there should be no fully formed objects, rather, there should only be a “smooth” background radiation signal.
Further, just because a quasar, an astronomical object, has been spotted at that distance and so time (per hypothesis), that says nothing about the validity of the “big bang”, Lemaître’s 1927 supposed “primeval atom”, because a far older Universe would have many quasars in it, and, perhaps more important, infers nothing about the mechanics of how the Universe started.
Again, Dr. Svalgaard, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts, Dr. Svalgaard states, “You are correct there is no presumption as we are talking about a direct measurement.”
No, there are only inferences.
The very WMAP paper you cite acknowledges these are inferences of the “big bang”, not direct observations & measurements.
The NASA document you cite, also, doesn’t claim there is direct observation & measurement of the so-called “big bang”. Instead, there are a list of observations & measurements that supposedly lead to inferences (also known as indirect observation & measurement) of the so-called “big bang”.
It’s not credible to mistate what scientific papers and documents report.
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “Let me restate: there are no free parameters in cosmology. Everything is measured and empirical.”
Dr. Svalgaard, apparently you don’t know the difference between direct observation & meaurement of the thing, itself, and indirect observation & measurement from which inferences are drawn as to the validity of a hypothesis. As in a direct observation & measurement of “A” which leads to an inference of the existence of “B”. There is no direct observation & measurement of “B” only an inference to its supposed existence.
Such is the case in the papers you present.
So, once again, Dr. Svalgaard, “What tests do we apply to both “dark” matter and “dark” energy to falsify them?”
It’s sad that Dr. Svalgaard can’t come to grips with reality and won’t admit to basic distinctions between direct evidence, and indirect evidence which then requires inferences to be drawn.
But it is an example of why “modern” astronomy is in crisis, today.
Readers, here, understand the distinction between direct observation & meaurement, and indirect observation & measurement requiring the drawing of inferences, even if Dr. Svalgaard can’t, so readers should take that into consideration when evaluating Dr. Svalgaard’s credibility and how much weight should be given to his opinions and statements on the subject.