Why 'Deniers' are Always Wrong – Models can't be falsified

@richardscourtney
“The first two sentences in your post at August 15, 2014 at 2:54 am are each wrong.”
Yes, he wrote “observational evidence” and who knows what he meant by that. If he’d written “we know from the basic physics” instead, the point he made would still be correct. Once you start arguing silly semantics you start sounding like the Alarmists.

“A theory that can’t be tested is like a toilet that can’t be flushed.”
How do you test evolutionary theory?

@Bill Marsh
“No one is ‘attacking’ Prof Ryan, what people are doing is taking issue with his definitive statement that the earth is absorbing more energy than it is emitting and that we KNOW this to be true based on observational evidence.”
So you don’t believe CO2 warms the atmosphere? Because you’re either on the side of science, or you’re a crank.
“The idea that disagreement with a statement made by an academic constitutes an ‘attack’ upon that person and therefore it should be dismissed is a very dangerous idea. It leads directly to a scientific elite dictatorship and all of science will come to a crashing halt as we substitute ‘Imam’ like proclamations of ‘fact’ for true scientific effort.”
A little paranoid don’t you think?

“Climate science is riddled with bad science, poor method and bad manners but that doesn’t disguise the fact that there is a real issue. ” – Professor Bob Ryan
If it is bad science, poor method and bad manners (maybe to the point of fraud), how do we find any issues, never mind the real issue?
I went off the Global Warming bandwagon for a few reasons.
– As this article states, lack of falsibility – hot,cold, wet, dry, it is all due to global warming apparently.
– Data is awful – incredible amount of massaging, interpolation, cherry picking sources, time periods, etc. That part is improving, though no where where it needs to be.
– If there is a warming of the planet, while certain regions may suffer, many other regions may benefit, a net plus for humanity. The constant doomsday message has gone past rediculous.
– Climate scientists are miserable at the computer science, forecasting and statistics at the core of their findings. This part is not improving.
– Science + politics = garbled science if not garbage science. Maybe thats why global alarming websites have an odor

@Bill Marsh
“Excellent demonstration of what you are accusing others of doing to Prof Ryan. Nice ad hominems wrapped up in a ‘strawman argument’. If I don’t agree with you I’m a ‘crank’ and I’m ‘paranoid’?”
I suggested you post was paranoid because it sounded paranoid. I wasn’t personally attacking you. An ad hominems is when I call you shorty. If I say your argument is rubbish and suggest a reason why, that’s not ad hominen.
“Please reference anything in Prof Ryan’s statement that says anything about CO2 (he doesn’t) and its effect on the atmosphere. Please reference anything I’ve stated about CO2 and its affect on the atmosphere”
Sorry I missed the part where all claims must be phrased precisely in the way you say they must be framed, because you say so. 😉

This whole issue of energy imbalance and its measurement would be a great topic for a post with lots of references and discussion. I am not an expert, but would like to understand better, so perhaps the professors can consider me the student. Of course energy conservation must be maintained, but I have a few questions:
Why do we assume that the energy has to balance at the margin of the earth’s atmosphere? Doesn’t it have to balance over the whole universe, not just our earth?
Aren’t there different forms of energy that have to be considered in the balancing equation? What about heat being converted to kinetic energy, etc? Is there kinetic energy at the margin of the atmosphere that we are not measuring?
Aren’t there a whole lot of assumptions about other forms of energy remaining stable (a useful assumption since we can’t measure them?) Do we know that the earth’s crust or internal termperature is always stable?
How much would sea level rise for a .016 degree C change in ocean temperature (due to thermal expansion)?
Sorry if these sound like stupid questions, but I was taught that you had to rule out other explanations as a part of the exercise. Any comments or a post would be appreciated.

“Why do we assume that the energy has to balance at the margin of the earth’s atmosphere?”
The reason why we know that there is an energy balance is that the Earth is not steadily cooling or warming up. Now it does vary a little in one direction and then the other, but does a remarkable job of reaching a new equilibrium state over time. But the equilibrium state must always be in a state of flux, because it’s just a physical impossibility that the balancing could be perfect. The Earth is billions of years old, and it has not frozen into an ice ball and the oceans have not boiled away. At least not yet. Although we expect both events will happen eventually, due to changes in the sun’s life cycle.

Has anything really changed in the climate?
Your backyard has some cool years, some warm seasons, a rainy day, a warm week, a record-breaking cold day. Nothing has changed.

A theory of everything can predict nothing.
Unless it is used to predict a complex non-linear process (climate).
Then, of course, every prediction must be correct 🙂