Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Over at “Digging in the Clay” Verity Jones has an excellent graphic summarizing the different levels of disagreement. The graphic deserves wider circulation. The types of disagreement range in a spectrum from the strongest, refuting the author’s central point, all the way down to the weakest, name-calling. Here’s the graphic:
The graphic is based on How to Disagree by Paul Graham, which is well worth reading.
One thing I’d like to highlight is that in the linked article the author says (emphasis mine):
DH5. Refutation.
The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation. It’s also the rarest, because it’s the most work. Indeed, the disagreement hierarchy forms a kind of pyramid, in the sense that the higher you go the fewer instances you find.
To refute someone you probably have to quote them. You have to find a “smoking gun,” a passage in whatever you disagree with that you feel is mistaken, and then explain why it’s mistaken. If you can’t find an actual quote to disagree with, you may be arguing with a straw man.
I bring all of this forward to encourage both myself and others to up our game, to aspire in our comments to the higher levels of the pyramid shown above, and to eschew the lower levels. Oh, and also to encourage people regarding my usual postscript.
Regards to everyone,
w.
My Usual Postscript: If you disagree with someone, please quote their exact words so we can all understand just what you are disagreeing with.
Further Reading: Verity Jones’s article is here.
Sorry Willis, but I find this entire post disagreeable!
/grin
Obviously, Willis is not a trial lawyer. It seems that whenever a trial lawyer asks a witness a question, and does not receive the answer he wanted, the next thing from the lawyer is : “In other words; blah blah blah !”
In OTHER words, lies OTHER meaning.
That is exactly why we choose the words we use. I would tell the lawyer that ” I choose to NOT use OTHER words. ”
So take him at his word. When Willis says to cite HIS words, that you disagree with; DON”T cite other words, that he did NOT use.
g
PS. So called journalists, reporters, NEWS persons, are the same sort of pests, as trial lawyers, and want you to tell them what they want to hear.
Is there some reason Willis why you bring this up at this time. I mean, to me it seems pretty clear all the time, and it is what you always tell us to do in your postscripts, so has something happened that make this more important now?
He perhaps saw it in a recent post over at Judith Curry’s site – someone in the comments put a link to someone else’s site which discussed it. Well, that’s where I saw it just the other day. It could be a coincidence that Willis saw it at the same time it appeared at climate etc….
Then there’s the Argument Clinic 🙂
No, there isn’t!
Oh yes it tiss
You’re not even arguing with him, you’re just gainsaying.
It’s not just saying “No it isn’t”.
I appreciate this. but if the other guy’s career and/or ego is at stake what I write (where on your pyramid) won’t mean jack.
And there’s a whole worldview question (sometimes called “epistemology” or other things). which means our debating points will never be appreciated by the other side.
The warmists aren’t playing chess, where we can make a move and, suddenly, they realize they are lost,. The reason the whole thing is so far gone is because they are wrong at multiple levels. And It is very, very difficult to reach people who are wrong at multiple levels.
More to the point–they don’t care one bit they’re wrong because it wasn’t about the science to begin with. They just needed an excuse as thin as air (pun intended) to justify their thievery. Truth is the victim along with anybody in their path.
Epistemology is theory of knowledge. A worldview need not include any explicit epistemology, but will almost certainly include a lot of other things.
And just what is “knowledge.” ?
george e. smith
That’s a good question. Information theory provides us with mathematical means for defining “knowledge.” It is the quantity that is called the “mutual information.” It is the information that is available to us for the purpose of controlling a system. For the current crop of IPCC models the mutual information is nil.
TobiasN: our debating points will never be appreciated by the other side.
This is all too frequently true. But it doesn’t follow that the effort is valueless. Because the discussion is public, there is a sizeable audience of people who are open to rational discussion. It’s that open minded group that will be influenced for good or ill by the level of our dialogue. WE’s comments are right on target.
Exactly! A public debate is never about convincing the opponent, but rather those in the audience who are open to persuasion. The pyramid represents those arguments (ascending) which are most persuasive to those who are interested in and open to the facts of the argument. Unfortunately, most of the general public will not rise above the lowest 3, or at most 4, levels of argument.
yellow font on white background is horrible. Otherwise, nice graphic.
And that is, because yellow-white distinction is done purely with short-wave cones, which are rare, among healthy eyes, compared to long and mid wave length cones that distinguish black from yellow.
Never use a single color channel to distinguish as it makes some color blind people really suffer.
Climatists really like to use the rainbow scale, though we see rainbows pretty differently.
Sing ’em differently, too, especially when like The Git you can’t sing in tune. When it comes to listening with my eyes I get completely lost…
In my experience, climatists use less of a rainbow scale and more shades of red.
Climatists like to use many rainbows and unicorns.
There’s also another reason.
The human eye response to EM radiation, which we call “light” and measure in units that are not energy, is highly variable in many ways.
One of the ways that our perception varies, is how sensitive we are to desaturation of a monochromatic wavelength hue.
We are most sensitive in this respect, at the yellow wavelengths around 585 nm. The average human eye can recognize only five distinct levels of desaturation, between the monochromatic yellow at 585 nm, and the “white point.”
Greens and reds give us many more distinct desaturated levels.
So don’t use yellow text / lines in graphs.
My reference is “The Science of Color”, published by the Commission on Colorimetry of the Optical Society of America; one of the founding groups of the American institute of Physics.
It would certainly help if so many threads here, and on many other skeptic sites, didn’t turn into mindless diatribes against “liberals” and “Obama”….from the other side I expect ad-hominem because they have nothing else.
“It would certainly help if so many threads here, and on many other skeptic sites, didn’t turn into mindless diatribes against “liberals” and “Obama”….”
Not all such diatribes are mindless because after all, Obama and the majority of liberals do indeed support the CAGW meme.
Sure. We should say “some people” are trying to use the EPA to shut down coal power by citing CO2 as a pollutant and “some people” signed a hopeless treaty with China. Not Obama.
If those arguments are non-sequitur, then I would agree. However, in the case of CAGW, these arguments are often germane.
In the past, an academic debate was one that meant nothing to anyone except the principles. The greater public could safely ignore the debate and the science behind those muddy issues, because they could. Now we have an academic debate, mired in science that is completely muddy and unproven, using in many cases, highly questionable statistical methods, unproven (or already falsified) models, whose authors are beneficiaries of government funding and employment, who control the brainwashing of elementary school students, who drive the corrupt and useless “publish or parish” doctrines at research universities, whose administrators typically rake 50% off the top of every research grant to pay for their own bloated administrations. The people we’re talking about are an important interest group within the leftist coalitions in Western nations. And that is a fact.
I find it extremely ironic that the people benefiting from unsustainable economics of long-term deficit spending, unfunded promises to the public, runaway welfare state commitments, uncontrolled immigration, hopelessly underfunded public pension systems, who have little appreciation of the risks in artificially driving up the cost of energy, are the same people creating graduate level schools of environmental sustainability.
This post was a reply to Chris Moffat’s post.
Spot-on. quant. suff.
Willis E, are you by any chance in real life a Swede? You sound like a Swede:
* “we” Swedes discuss and discuss to reach an agreement.
btw. “we” is due to the fact that my “bestemor” grandmother on my father’s side was Norwegian. That’s not the same as being a Swede. From bestemor’s side I learnt: You don’t own land. You look after the land to next generation; All men are equal but unique. It’s better to stand up for your own views and opinion than standing up for someone else’s.
After Willis Eschenbach’s savage attack on a poor woman, that in good faith commented on one essay Eschenbach wrote, I have nothing to say about this mans input. I’m not gonna read anything Eschenbach writes before Eschenbach apologizes for that hateful attack.
Ad hominem and name calling with a strawman thrown in for misdirection.
If you don’t read, don’t comment! Especially without substance.
As this post of yours appears to be addressed to all of us readers and not just to Willis Eschenbach whose work you are not going to read without an apology, could you pleases quote exactly what this savage attack was? (And you have said a lot when you say that you have nothing to say).
Willis Eschenbach:
“Janice, you using my father-in-law’s death as an excuse for proselytizing for your religion is disgusting. I have no problem with Christ’s message, but your actions here represent one of the most despicable parts of Christianity” (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/18/my-friend-billy-2/)
That was it. A kind christian woman (Janice) commented on his story as a christian would. I’m an atheist and even I recognize a uncalled for savage attack for what it is. Willis Eschenbach must apologize.
No, Janice was the one out of line by attempting to use his grief as a method of conversion. The words she used were not an attempt to console or help (though in her mind it probably was), but to try to”draw him towards Christ. Sorry, old tactic that I was taught back in my devout childhood. However, it’s not helpful, it’s exploitative.
It’s as cringe-worthy as Shylock’s forced conversion at the end of Merchant of Venice
Having taken the trouble to read the original interchange, I fully agree with Willis’s reaction and words. You, Yngvar are out of order, as was Janice
Yngvar, thanks for your attack. You seem to have missed the salient points.
1. Janice used the occasion of my giving a decidedly non-Christian eulogy for my father-in-law as an excuse to try to convert me to Christianity, and to tell me that my deeply held beliefs have no lasting value. I objected strongly. It is unacceptable to use the time of mourning to attempt to convert someone, whether to Christianity, Islam or any other religion. I told Janice that in no uncertain terms.
2. I then apologized (four times from memory) for the harshness of my reply. The tone of it was clearly over the top, and I admitted it, but then I was grief-stricken and delivering a eulogy, not full of rainbows and light.
But I did not and I do not apologize for the essence of my reply. Her actions were wrong. If someone went to a Christian eulogy and used the occasion to tell the Christian man giving the eulogy that his beliefs in Jesus could not bring him lasting peace or hope, and then said that the Christian man should realize that Islam is the real answer, and then started spouting verses from the Koran to back up their case, you’d consider that person an unpleasant boor, and rightly so. That kind of action is uncalled for and intrusive at a eulogy. It’s not a time for pushing your own brand of religion, no matter how much solace it might bring you personally.
But that’s exactly what Janice said to me. And that is not the act of a “kind christian woman”, as you call her. Kind Christian women don’t try to sell Jesus at a Muslim eulogy. Kind Christian women just offer their sincere condolences and offer their Christian love and support without any attempt to convert the grieving or to quote verses from their holy book to show that Islam is wrong.
Could I have told her that she was way, way over the line in a more pleasant fashion? Sure, in a perfect world. Here in this imperfect world, I was upset and I lashed out … and then I sincerely (and repeatedly) apologized to her for the unpleasantness of my answer …
But no, Yngvar, I will not apologize to for calling her on her pushy, intrusive, inappropriate attempt to sell me Jesus while I was grieving for Billy. Wrong place, wrong time, and wrong manner.
Finally, let me add that Janice never objected to my comment. Not once. In fact, she stopped commenting on the thread completely. All of the outrage was then manufactured by folks such as yourself, who seem to take pride in being outraged on the behalf of others. For all that either you or I know, Janice felt that I was correct about her actions and has kindly accepted my apologies for my tone, leaving you alone to whine on and on about what a baaaad man you think I am … we just don’t know.
Your outrage is doing you a disservice, Yngvar. I’m not the man you think I am.
My best regards to you, along with my hope that you save your outrage for real offenses. Insisting that someone owes you an apology may make sense. But insisting that Person A owes person B an apology? I’m sorry, but in these kinds of cases I greatly prefer to deal solely with the principals.
Let me repeat what I said to Janice at the time. If she wants to make her case that my apologies were inadequate, or that her actions were appropriate, I’m more than happy to have that discussion with her.
But discussing it with you? Sorry, Yngvar, but until she appoints you her official spokesdude, I’m not interested in whatever you might be imagining about how Janice feels.
w.
I’ve said this to Janice in my own exchanges with her; religion is (or should be) a personal thing. As a devout atheist myself, I don’t take kindly to being told stuff that I think is pure crap (because it has no basis in evidence), and would much rather the religious person keep it to themselves, i.e. personal. I don’t want to hear it because it’s meaningless, puerile drivel. I place belief in a god, Jesus, on a par with Father Christmas. If YOU need to believe in something then that’s all fine with me. I don’t go ’round door-to-door trying to get people to become an atheist. If you want to believe something, then believe it…but keep it to yourself. I have just lost my father-in-law (a month ago), who was like a dad to me. Woe betide anyone who speaks any religious nonsense to my wife at the moment! We’re both feeling our lives are empty – given that a man who never did anyone any harm, was generous, and caring, is gone, and we’ll never get to see him again.
Notes that Willis doesn’t use quoted words.
Probably attacking strawman.
He is definitely misrepresenting the incident with
Janice
Willis:
“1. Janice used the occasion of my giving a decidedly non-Christian eulogy for my father-in-law as an excuse to try to convert me to Christianity, …”
Had I not seen the link to a comment thread I would have assumed that an ‘occasion’ was a wake for the deceased and not, as it turns out, in the open comments section to a public posting on a public website that doesn’t focus on grief management rituals. The context seems rather important as the general notion behind a public posting with public comments open is to permit discussion of the post in question.
“… and to tell me that my deeply held beliefs have no lasting value.”
I’m not sure what the point of this clause might be. Is the objection here that there was chutzpah involved in acknowledging that our personal set of beliefs last only as long as our person does? Or is the objection here that there was chutzpah involved in mentioning what seems to be a rather painfully obvious observation in the public comments to a public posting on a climate site?
“The tone of it was clearly over the top, and I admitted it, but then I was grief-stricken and delivering a eulogy, not full of rainbows and light.”
This seems a bit off to me. The ‘consensus’ of proper human behaviour in the West is that an apology is ‘I was wrong’ and that a rationalization, excuse, or pretense at an apology is ‘I was wrong, but.’ And indeed, if you were grief stricken to a degree that you were incapable of having a conversation about it, then the appropriate answer was not to invite public comment by making a public posting on a climate site.
” Her actions were wrong. If someone went to a Christian eulogy … [rationalization skipped] you’d consider that person an unpleasant boor, and rightly so. That kind of action is uncalled for and intrusive at a eulogy. It’s not a time for pushing your own brand of religion, no matter how much solace it might bring you personally.”
There’s several claims here and several problems. First, you imply that Janice was a gate crasher at a mortuary service. But so far as I understand the only death managed on this site is the ostensible death of climate alarmism. And while someone may be ‘boorish’ that does not imply that they were ‘wrong.’ It *does* imply that they violated the ‘consensus of social functioning.’ And, indeed, if Janice had simply bust into a room at a funeral parlor and started causing a ruckus then I think we could all agree on the wrongness of it. But then, this was a public post with public comments about climate. And there’s certainly no need to state that it must *always* be *solely* about climate. But certainly the culture on this site is to encourage and endorse strong argumentation on subjects regardless of what the ‘consensus’ might think about it.
“Kind Christian women don’t try to sell Jesus at a Muslim eulogy. Kind Christian women just offer their sincere condolences and offer their Christian love and support without any attempt to convert the grieving or to quote verses from their holy book to show that Islam is wrong.”
This argument only works on the idea that this was a Muslim funerary service in an appropriate mortuary facility. Given that this is not the case, the rest certainly does not and can not follow from the premise. And this is quite aside your naked and unbacked assertions about what a ‘kind christian woman’ would or would not do. From what I understand of your philosophical standpoint you are not a Christian, so you’ll forgive me for requiring some actual argument on your part before I blindly believe your statements about what ‘kind Christian’ anythings may or may not do.
“Here in this imperfect world, I was upset and I lashed out … and then I sincerely (and repeatedly) apologized to her for the unpleasantness of my answer …”
Two considerations here. The first, as already noted, an apology coupled with a ‘but then’ is never sincere. The second is that if you acknowledge that this is an imperfect world then it is somewhat entertaining that you do not acknowledge Janice as a mere imperfect part of this imperfect world. Which, if such were the case, would rather excuse her actions in the same manner that you are asking excuses for yours. — “Sorry, but…”
“All of the outrage was then manufactured by folks such as yourself, who seem to take pride in being outraged on the behalf of others.”
You make these statements as if having an outrage based on what you witness is somehow beyond the pale. But your entire argumentation relies on the idea that ‘other people’ would be outraged beyond the pale at the behaviors of Janice. But if we accept that then you are *also claiming by necessity* that other people’s outrage at your, let’s call it ‘boorish,’ behaviour in response to a public commenter on a public post in a community that encourages strong argumentation is entirely justified.
If this is so, then your behaviour is in the wrong here. No “Sorry, but” — simply an unforced error. But if your behaviour is not in the wrong, the Janice’s cannot be either, and so your accusations are an unforced error. I see no other way out of this snarl that doesn’t have you on the wrong side of your own argumentation; but you’re free to disabuse me of any oversights on my part.
“Let me repeat what I said to Janice at the time. If she wants to make her case that my apologies were inadequate, or that her actions were appropriate, I’m more than happy to have that discussion with her.”
Should we assume that this will be a public discussion with public comments on a public site about climate change? For certainly if discussion about this subject were ever inappropriate to begin with then so to was your original posting. But if it is not inappropriate here then your stated grievances about the conversations that arose are inappropriate themselves.
Best wishes to you and yours.
Willis Eschenbach
April 5, 2015 at 11:05 pm .
Hello Willis.
Maybe this is not proper but just for the sake of saying it.
I think the problem with what Janice said or tried to in that particular point is that she is a kind person, as far as I can tell.
I could be wrong, YES, but from what I have seen here Janice is a kind person.
Some times even a kind person may end up to say the right and the proper thing but in a wrong and unaccepted manner. That is life Willis, no one is perfect.
I went to read your great post then and the Janice’s comment.
I don’t think she was trying to preach or convert any one to her belief or faith.
Maybe she overstepped in her approach but I think all intention was for the good and kind.
In the end she resonated very well with you, due probably to her belief, that love rules above all, for us humans, even rules faith and what we individually believe on, what ever that is according to our belief and faith.
That was what actually I think you too were trying a say……
I have read a good deal of your work here but that particular post of yours is one that is lead by feeling mostly than rationale….
It was lead, as far as I can tell, out of your love for the most dear people or persons in your life, and believe me, it was very touchy to me, honestly.
Please do not be so harsh to Janice, as far as I can tell she tried at that time her best, but no any one of us is perfect, and I am confident that she has learned a lot from it, but I think you have to relax your judgement on her, if I am not wrong that is, especially after so much time has elapsed.
Trust me I do not mean to upset you.
I am sorry if I may have overstepped too.
cheers
Name calling.
Yngvar, you are an asshat, IMHO.
But what do I know, since you already obviously read what he wrote (at least some, if not all).
(BTW mods, just what exactly is different between and “asshat” and an “asshole”? Inquiring minds want to know. Is one more likely to get one’s post into moderation?)
[An asshat is the hole covering an empty head. And verse visa. .mod]
Didn’t read it. Name was mentioned in the headline. 🙂 But agree; this ‘asshat’ or ‘asshole’, whatever is agreed upon ; when will he apologize?
Damn, I forgot this;
“Me, I’d prefer it if you didn’t post again on this thread. However, people’s preferences obviously matter little to you, otherwise you wouldn’t try this kind of unpleasant witnessing. This can’t be the first time you’ve had your face slapped for exactly this behavior. And yet here you are again …
I hope that’s clear enough. If not, I’m happy to tell you how I really feel.”
Willis? This will not stand.
Well…
Well he’s been at the bottom of the pyramid on a few occasions but to give him his due he admits it also applies to him. So he gets an ‘early mark’ as we used to call it in the school room.
@Yngvar
Could you please explain what exactly is “hateful” and what exactly Eschenbach needs to apologize for?
Also, could you please explain exactly why you don’t need to apologize to Eschenbach for qualifying his words as a “savage attack” and a “hateful attack”?
I’m trying to understand where you are coming from here.
From here it looks like a clear case of a concern troll/drama queen attempting to hijack a thread by using an ad hominem attack against the author. Please let’s remain on topic and not keep feeding it.
I am rather new here, do not know any of you folks very well if at all, and am neither an atheist nor a devout Christian, although I was raised to be one by a father who was, for a time, a Trappist monk. This whole conversation is news to me, so perhaps my view can be seen to be objective.
Janice was out of line, the author had every right to say what he said, he committed no savage attack, at least not that has been revealed here, and Yngvar has no right to troll a comment section demand a redress of past wrongs* that have nothing to do with the subject at hand.
*And no past wrongs were demonstrated to have occurred to any convincing degree.
Settled.
Can we move on?
I read her polemic. She was lecturing him at length on how to deal with his loss by using her religion. Insensitive proselytising at best.
He was not the only one in the comments to tell her she was out of order.
Yes she responded using her faith but I would not have gone so far as to say it was “in good faith”.
As an atheist I get pissed off by people telling me that god is smiling on me when things I have worked for go well or that they are going to pray for me when things get tough.
Good old straw man political correctness?
The lower three win political elections in the Late Holocene.
Yngvar
Just wondering if your reaction is such because Janice is a woman and ‘nice’.
The Strawman Argument deserves its own layer between Contradiction and CounterArgument.
The Strawman is not an honest CounterArgument for it purposely misstates the primary one and then refutes that pale imitation with reasoning and evidence. But it is slight of hand, misdirection. It is a perfectly valid and truthful argument against a replacement target.
The Strawman is not a Contradiction because it does use evidence, facts, and truthfulness.
Stephen Rasey April 5, 2015 at 8:24 pm
The Strawman Argument deserves its own layer between Contradiction and CounterArgument.
Not sure where exactly it goes, but yes, it is a layer that has been left out.
The other thing missing from this model is any measure of background knowledge. You can have all the facts on your side, if the technical discussion is over the head of the person you are debating with, they do not matter. This in my mind is the real issue in the climate debate. To explain to many people why their suppositions are wrong, I first have to explain their side of the argument to them. Ten seconds into the physics, they “tune out”. All that is available at that point is appeal to authority and other tactics of the bottom end of the pyramid.
Indeed! See DR. DEV BAHADUR DONGOL elsewhere on hydro-power and the lack of understanding of head loss through devices. (in pipelines, not guillotines.)
Responding to tone
Ditch the preposition altogether.
Good point! A preposition is something you should NEVER end a sentence with. Of course, this is right on topic, too.
funny…
Seriously, I would think that in a “real science” discussion involving disagreement, the participants would begin at the “Refutation” level.
What this says about the “climate science” arena, where all too often the Alarmist/Warmist folks prefer to start at the bottom level quite often, is perhaps the point of the OP.
Also, the skeptics folks prefer to start at the bottom level quite often.
“I’m trying, Ringo. I’m trying real hard to be the shepherd.”
There’s a level missing – censorship. Not onlt not bothering to ‘attack’ someone, but making it as if they never existed in the first place.
That’s not the only thing missing. Has anyone noticed a central point recently? Where is there a falsifiable hypothesis/theory of anthropogenic global warming, or anthropogenic climate change, as it stands in April, 2015?
Perhaps when Brandon’s done mentally masturbating on the other six threads, he can let us know.
Joking aside, is there one ? … does the AGU have one, or the other posters on here who, despite the fact that they should know better, still proclaim with convoluted fancy language that it’s simple physics?
philincalifornia,
Is it really six threads? Yeesh, I think you’re correct.
Well let’s see, AGW is pretty much where it has been since 1896 in terms of falsifiability. The details have been fleshed out quite a bit. If you’ll pardon the pun, ECS is a hot topic this week …
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/04/03/ecs-2k-again/
… as it pretty much always has been since FAR went to press. So from my POV, it’s mostly about getting the fine details less wrong. From your perspective I imagine it looks like something akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Brandon:
From your perspective I imagine it looks like something akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic
When you can show (as you couldn’t in our previous discussion) hard scientific evidence for any global climate parameter being caused by CO2 going from 280ppm to 400ppm CO2, you still won’t have standing to use Titanic analogies.
From my perspective, it looks like people who can’t get productive jobs digging ditches and filling them in, with the filling in part beginning to get underway.
…. and your failure to present “a falsifiable hypothesis/theory of anthropogenic global warming, or anthropogenic climate change, as it stands in April, 2015”, is noted.
…. that would be “any change in” any global climate parameter
philincalifornia,
You didn’t ask for evidence, you asked for a falsifiable hypothesis/theory. Arrhenius (1896) was my answer.
Fair enough. Is that your final answer?
Hmm, ok. How do you define falsifiability in this context? How is it specifically that Arrhenius (1896) does not meet that definition?
The size of that list is quite dependent on which observational data series you consider valid. Penny for your thoughts.
Please cut and paste Arrhenius’ falsifiable hypothesis/theory (from Arrhenius 1896) that states what effect atmospheric CO2 going from 280 ppm to 400 ppm will have any effect on any global climate parameter.
Yes, I know this is an impossible task, so why don’t you state your own updated 2015 version, and please feel free to cut and paste anyone else’s, and that would be any climate scientist’s or, indeed, any other human being on the planet’s version, or succinctly distill something down as you see fit …..
It’s like touching the third rail innit ? Sizzle sizzle ouch ouch.
You could always run away, while dropping some pathetic attempted deflecting comment too ……
…. as if.
philincalifornia:
There is no falsifiable hypothesis/theory. In his response to you, Brandon Gates fails to cite one though implying that he is doing the opposite..
philincalifornia,
I have two pending questions you have failed to answer:
1) How do you define falsifiability in this context?
2) How is it specifically that Arrhenius (1896) does not meet that definition?
Brandon:
Which statement in Arrhenius (1896) do you have in mind?
Terry Oldberg,
I have asked philincalifornia to define terms. He has not.
Brandon Gates
It might be fruitful for you to read my response to philincalifornia and react to this response.
Terry Oldberg April 6, 2015 at 9:39 pm
…. and also that the Pyramid has no facility for dealing with “weaseling out of the argument while simultaneously trying to pretend it’s the other’s fault”.
Maybe this post’s a bit too old, but on other threads there’s sometimes the additional person to join in (might be Brandon’s Mom) to announce that Brandon is winning the argument because he’s way cleverer than the opponent.
Maybe a 3D pyramid could handle it?
My last two interactions with Brandon have actually been quite an eye-opener for me. A priori, I would have honestly thought that given the wealth of AGW, ACC and CAGW comments in the blogosphere, together with the peer-reviewed literature and statements from Scientific Societies, it would be possible to either cut-and-paste, or cobble together a real falsifiable hypothesis or theory of where the hypothesis or theory stands in 2015.
There is a methodological error in global warming climatology that accounts for Brandon’s inability to cite a falsifiable hypothesis. This is that the events underlying the models do not exist. It follows that when a claim is made by one of these models it does not have a truth-value. That it does not have a truth-value makes this claim non-falsifiable. For brevity I’ve left out some steps in a proof of this conclusion. If you’d like, I’ll supply the missing steps.
philincalifornia,
Is that what kids these days are calling “bait and switch”?
Arrhenius (1896) was my original answer to your original question. It meets my definition of falsifiability because it makes testable claims. His central thesis — here’s your copypasta — was:
If the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
This is still in conceptual use today by what the IPCC calls “simplified expressions”:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/c/2/a/c2a0e92291f118a8258a19b8fa58bb07.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/2/c/f/2cfca9ed59cb49f7b68570481ee87f53.png
The argument in literature is about the value of the coefficients, which I alluded to in my original reply to you by referring to ATTP’s blog post about ECS: https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/04/03/ecs-2k-again/
I would be happy to discuss the range of those estimates with you, but first there’s the small matter that you continue to insist that I’ve not yet provided you with a falsifiable hypothesis/theory of AGW. So I have challenged you for your definitions of those terms, and asked you to explain how Arrhenius (1896) does not satisfy your requirements. In dismally predictable fashion, your response is to pretend I am the one who has moved the goalposts in this discussion. As an added bonus, you’ve tossed into that mix some spicy speculations about me soliciting Mom’s help to astroturf for me. So charming.
As is often the case here on WTFUWT, I’m reminded of George Carlin’s take on an old Samuel Clemens aphorism: Never argue with stupid people, they’ll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
So congrats my dear Phil. Not only did you beat me to the bottom — having started there with your master baiting technique — I have now brought the fight to your level knowing full well that it’s to your advantage to do so and that I’m very likely to get clobbered. You’re a Winner!
Exactly. Speaking of being exuberantly pleased with oneself, the other script you’re running is called JAQing off, where JAQ stands for “just asking questions”: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions
“Just asking questions” takes over [from the Socratic method] when the answers are already well known, where the question embodies a point refuted a thousand times, or where the questioner exhibits willful ignorance.
JAQ-offs are ridiculously easy to spot …
… because they’re fond of saying things like, “Runnin’ away aye? Come back ‘ere you yellow bastard and take what’s comin’ to you. I’ll bite your legs off!”
Such buffoons can be a lot of fun, all it takes is a certain amount of not giving a shit. There again, I expect I you have me at a disadvantage. I will say this though, you’re an awfully good tutor in that particular art. Ta.
Terry Oldberg,
Phil’s a big boy and doesn’t require an apologist.
I already know where you stand as we’ve discussed it several times before, without satisfactory resolution to definition of terms. My view of it is that, not unlike Phil, you stand on definitions and won’t budge from them even when I have pointed out where I think they fail. Which I find tedious and non-productive. So thanks, but no thanks.
It would be appropriate to read your non-response as a capitulation on the falsifiability issue.
Unless one is disposed to conclude your argument is sophistry.
I’m going with capitulation too, maybe even evisceration given his Black Knight projection, but he can always carry it on further as Willis has added some comments starting here:
Willis Eschenbach April 7, 2015 at 5:46 pm
Tanya – If you are still around, I agree. And I’ve added two myself, though someone might think they are much the same – mischaracterization of the opposition and Straw Man arguments. The former is done a lot in politics. The latter in all sorts of debates.
In my comment I failed to quote Tanya and what I agreed with. Tanya had said:
“There’s a level missing – censorship. Not only not bothering to ‘attack’ someone, but making it as if they never existed in the first place.”
From the article:
To refute someone you probably have to quote them. You have to find a “smoking gun,” a passage in whatever you disagree with that you feel is mistaken, and then explain why it’s mistaken.
I almost always quote the words that I disagree with. Usually by writing something like, XYZ says: [ … ] (their comment cut and pasted, in italics).
Quoting them verbatim avoids lots of confusion. Something I learned from Willis a long time ago.
[And that practice is STRONGLY recommended by the site moderating team. For improved accuracy, and to “tie together” replies from comments often many hours or days old, further separated by other answers in the thread. .mod]
Quoting verbatim may avoid confusion, but it also avoids addressing what is assumed or intentionally unsaid. The insistence of some contributors on being directly quoted allows avoidance of debate or discussion of assumptions a contributor is making, but not stating.
A case in point would be recent discussion over several threads of Viscount Monckton’s “simple” climate model. The attempt to corral or ring-fence the debate to discussion of the applicability of the Bode equation in feedback modelling only, was used to suppress “OT” comment on the underlying assumption that the radiative gases in our atmosphere had a net positive warming effect.
Essentially this reduced discussion to a pointless theoretical exercise debating the applicability of the Bode equation to modelling that has absolutely no relation to actual atmospheric physics. How many theoretical angels can dance on the head of a theoretical pin in a theoretical alternate universe?
Cleaning the elephant dung from the carpet without acknowledging how it got there is not going to solve anything.
Hi Konrad,
You can do both. I’m certainly not saying my way or the highway. Quoting verbatim, then responding to it avoids unnecessary confusion, that’s all.
I was agreeing with the Refutation part of the pyramid. I think your comment applies to other parts.
dbstealey,
I do understand the “avoidance of confusion” issue both you and the moderators have raised.
However, being an empiricist, I too am solidly on the Refutation end of the argument.
I’m not being belligerent here, as I do value your comments, but on many occasions you have stated that you believe CO2 will cause some warming. I am one of the happy few who ask “Why?”. (Happy because the Internet holds a permanent record of who was who on St. Crispin’s day).
I believe it is not enough for sceptics to be “less wrong” than alarmists. I believe we have to be right.
This AGW inanity has been the greatest assault on science, reason, freedom and democracy in human history. Sceptics self censoring and ring-fencing debate to the “acceptable” lukewarmer positions simply allows the perpetrators to flee, recoup and attack again. This is the inevitable price of being “less wrong” rather than right.
I do not ask that you respond on thread, but I do ask that you question why you think adding radiative gases to our radiatively cooled atmosphere reduces it’s ability to cool the surface of our planet.
I would suggest that “warming but less than we thought” is not a winning argument, but “AGW due to CO2 is a physical impossibility” is. In terms of what as at stake, not just now but in the future, there is nothing to be gained from the lukewarmer position. That’s why I say it is not acceptable to just debate lukewarmers on their chosen ground of battle through direct quotation. They must be taken to task over what they intentionally avoided saying.
Konrad,
I suppose the best answer I can give you is that Prof Richard Lindzen, Anthony Watts, and many others who know more about the subject than I do are convinced that CO2 adds a little warming. Not much; I tend to agree with Lindzen that it’s in the neighborhood of ≈half a degree per doubling. Radiative physics also predicts a small amount of warming on a diminishing log basis.
That said, you could be right. The reason I say that is because we don’t really know. With the rise in CO2, there should be at least a very tiny bit of warming. But there isn’t. And if cooling begins, that will support your argument. Real world evidence trumps all speculation.
Konrad:
“Quoting verbatim may avoid confusion, but it also avoids addressing what is assumed or intentionally unsaid. The insistence of some contributors on being directly quoted allows avoidance of debate or discussion of assumptions a contributor is making, but not stating.”
Your unstated assumption, that I will address here, is that unstated assumptions are not also part of the *understanding* of the verbatim text. Now it is certainly true that any individual can refuse to address anything at all, at any point in time. But this is easily dealt with, which I will use your case study for:
“…was used to suppress “OT” comment on the underlying assumption that the radiative gases in our atmosphere had a net positive warming effect.”
For any such given discussion there are two approaches. The first is to explicitly denote and call into question the background assumption that there would be a ‘net positive warming effect.’ If this has been addressed appropriately in other works then the person making fact claims on the back of this assumption must assuredly have the ability to answer the issue. By making fact claims they have placed themselves in the role of a teacher and the onus is on them.
It is only if they cannot produce this background work, or refuse, that we may *properly* note that the entire discussion is based on false premises and so has no legitimacy as rational though. However, it is *perfectly proper* for them to restate their background assumption as a hypothetical only, and then proceed from there. It is still on their head that they didn’t make the hypothetical explicit, but this is easily rectified. And so long as the conclusions are likewise constrained as being dependent on the success of the background hypotheticals then there are no issues.
But if (hypothetical statement here) they cannot produce the background facts, will not produce the background facts, and neither produce their argument as a hypothetical (see this sentence) that we can then state that they have left the boundary of sanity for the warm fuzzies of illogical statements of dogma.
Hope this helps.
Konrad asks “How many theoretical angels can dance on the head of a theoretical pin in a theoretical alternate universe?”
One. If another one comes along they will fight over who gets the privilege of standing on a pin.
2 days late in this conversation, so this may not contribute much to the give and take…
Konrad: “I would suggest that “warming but less than we thought” is not a winning argument, but “AGW due to CO2 is a physical impossibility” is.”
Not sure I’d make that argument myself. I’d go for “Catastrophic AGW due to CO2 is a physical impossibility” is. Without the “catastrophe to come“, they’ve got NOTHING. It is truly unbelievable how many people on the street really accept that the world for their grandkids is going to be an oven and approaching unlivable. THAT is what they are selling, not just any old garden variety AGW.
dbstealy: “Not much; I tend to agree with Lindzen that it’s in the neighborhood of ≈half a degree per doubling. Radiative physics also predicts a small amount of warming on a diminishing log basis.
That said, you could be right. The reason I say that is because we don’t really know. With the rise in CO2, there should be at least a very tiny bit of warming. But there isn’t.”
I have to come in with that silly old thing called the Little Ice Age and what happens at the end of cool or cold periods: The climate warms. I am a pretty big fan of Lindzen, and am glad he is on our side. He is a great voice of calm on a hillside full of banshees, screaming across the vale. But the TREND since the early 1800s is clearly a slight upward trend. And upon that tilted slope are 30-year ups and 30-years of slightly down or flat periods. There have been 3 full cycles like that, and we re in the fourth. That 60-year full cycle keeps on happening. Ask Judy Curry about that cycling. Without us coming out of the LIA, does the cycle still exist but on a flat trend? Is “The Pause” simply the current 30-year down-slope?
At some point the warming coming out of the LIA will end, and then what? In the Holocene we’ve come out of several nosedives in the record shown in the Greenland ice cores – severe 13°C or 14°C drops and just about the same near-immediate rises, ones much more severe than what we have today. Since the end of the Younger Dryas, we’ve had a REMARKABLY stable climate, with the very best chance for humans and other life forms to “live long and proper”. Since we don’t have a CLUE about what those severe downs and ups were from, do we have any idea what our future holds? Can we use the history of the Holocene and ignore the rest of the Pleistocene?
Dec 2013 Don Aitkin used that same graphic in a post explaining how Eco-bullies continually strive to drive away critics from internet debates, his example being how Alarmists try to take over the debate site called The Conversation (which is ultimately funded by UK and Australian governments)
http://donaitkin.com/how-not-to-argue/
March 2015 : his blog told how they had succeeded in driving him away.
http://donaitkin.com/what-sort-of-conversation-do-you-get-on-the-conversation/
I am pleased to see recognition of the fact that “refute” means “prove wrong”. All too often I hear people – usually politicians – say “I refute that” when all they do is deny. (Of course, for a politician the fact that he has said it is sufficient proof.)
This dog might be too old for new tricks.
If those spankings it took at a young age didn’t take…..I doubt it will change now.
Which is not to say the point was entirely missed.
As someone who has recently entered the fray disagreeing along the “tone” level, I find this verry interesting. And I agree. What I might add, thought is that these categories are not necessarily in a vertical level of value at any giventime, and they are not isolated. Legitimate points can be made in combination as well as in singularity, and one point may be most signficant at one moment while some other point is most significant at another.
Skepticism requires disagreement. Someone has to disagree and be allowed to disagree otherwise we are talking about a consensus. Any positioning that attempts to stop the disagreement through bullying or condescension or other intellectual or “clever” means, is a strike against skepticism in general. “Tone”, in this regard, is a non-legitimate argument, especially when it is used in a poor-victim sense, i.e. I have been attacked unfairly, so I shall not take additional push-back well.
Using the term “denialism” is a way to introduce extreme, negative tone to the conversation. Attack defense uses negative tone – even if in the background good technical arguments are being used. As social creatures we recognize these negative cues: we are supposed to sit down and be quiet because our “betters” have spoken. Again, this goes against the basis of skepticism.
Regardless of provocation, the leaders are supposed to accept disagreement. Emotionalism may be our primitive, knee-jerk response, but the higher level participants are supposed to – yes, value judgement here, as thousands of years of philosphers would attest – “rise above”.
Tone is important. It facillitates or suppresses discussion, especially when there is a dispute. Wars start and continue based on tone.
Pulpit and preachers exist because the laymen need to be reminded of things. The importance of tone might be one of those things. I don’t say this because I am think I am “smarter”, but because I have seen the effect of tone over many years of personal and private market life. It counts.
Well, argument on tone does have some valid use, mostly as an ad-hominem rebuke.
When you state your position and are then accused of being a conspiracy theorist, paid off, or insane, you really don’t have any position to work with. I have in the past said outright “if you cannot debate politely then I shall not continue this discussion” and then left. It’s not optimum, but it’s better than beating your head on a brick wall.
Having successfully and convincingly accomplished refuting the central point at the top of the pyramid without acknowledgement of such from the opponent can quickly lead to the type of argument described near or at the base.
Alinsky’s Rules for radicals #5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
[And that practice is STRONGLY recommended by the site moderating team. For improved accuracy, and to “tie together” replies from comments often many hours or days old, further separated by other answers in the thread. .mod]
Which is what people did a lot better job of before that silly “reply” button got introduced. Just sayin’.
David…..what to do?
Without the reply button you would never read THIS but with it following the threads feel like we’re lost in a universe of infinite universes.
I must admit that I believe I’m slowly leaning back towards the old single thread calling out timestamps and quotations. (At least that way I know I’ve actually finished a thread.)
+1
Yes, the “reply” button was appealing in theory, but I find that I dislike it in practice. At least for me it makes it more likely I’ll miss something I didn’t intend to.
Nope. This is not the way normal dialogue works. This is the way an obsessive compulsive tries to manage everyone in the universe into conforming to his delusional wacky POV.
WTF??? I mean really.
Strawman combined with ridicule, name calling.
utter bewilderment….This is like a bad David Lynch script.
Dialog frequently does not work, precisely for these very reasons. If your interlocutor makes assumptions about what you (a hypothetical “you”, not you) mean, because perhaps your phrasing might have been superior with a little less Bushmills on board, and argues against what he understands you to have said, rather than what you meant, there will be problems. If you presume that the words you utter have a crystalline clarity of meaning, and that your audience could not possibly misunderstand, problems multiply. The results are not pretty.
Paul Westhaver, how does “normal dialogue” work?
Ok…you got me.
This is missing the one from the grammarian without self control e.g. that reads, “asshat is one word” and its cousin that finds a correctible nonfatal error and then evermore states in responses to that writer that the writer has no credibility because of that since corrected error.
Willis, I think Graham’s pyramid is worth bringing out every little while, and did so myself a year or two ago, at
http://donaitkin.com/how-not-to-argue/
There is another type of argument.
It is refuting the proposition not by finding mistakes in the proposal, but by outflanking the proposal and address flawed hidden assumptions. This is an argument that applies to proofs via different coordinate systems or tensor analysis. No one must dissect a proposed perpetual motion machine — argument from the foundation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics should be sufficient.
Berkley Earth’s scalpel is refuted in my mind because I object to the harm done to low frequency signal as viewed in the Fourier Domain. I don’t need to know the ins and outs of their regional homogenization on thousands of 2-10 year segments. The low frequency climate signals have been obliterated by slicing records and no massaging of the high frequency weather noise will restore it.
There was a book called The Black Hole War, which was a tussle between Stephen Hawking and Leonard Susskind. This was one of those arguments approaching a problem from different modelling concepts. Susskind was using traditional Quantum Mechanics, Hawking wrecking everything with an unsettling conclusion about the entropy of black holes. There resolution required finding hidden assumptions in both models.
I don’t know an accepted name for it. For the time being I’ll call it “CounterPoint or CounterView”. It should fall at the level of Refutation, but it is close to CounterArgument.
There is no change.
That reminds me, there is the Steven Mosher Argument,
so far under that pyramid if falls off the page.
The Drive-By, Non-sequitur, “What ARE you talking about?”
the MSM is not into refuting even the most outlandish of CAGW ***claims:
6 April: Yomiuri Shimbun Japan: Ryuichi Otsuka: Global warming more dangerous than N-plants
During a recent visit to Japan, Sachs (Jeffrey Sachs, U.S. economist and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University) spoke to The Yomiuri Shimbun about what it would take to achieve sustainable development. The following are excerpts from the interview:
Q: The SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals) list many challenges. What are the most serious challenges?
A: ***The most basic challenge is that our economic system is not compatible with our environmental safety. The climate is being changed by our energy system. Scientists say ***we are reaching planetary boundaries…
Q: It’s difficult to feel threats of climate change.
A:***It requires lots of scientific knowledge to understand a full detail. ***But I do feel that people are intuitively grasping that the climate is changing. I would emphasize that the risks are not only about the future. ***Last year was the warmest ever recorded, and ***all over the world there were huge typhoons…
Q: Some people are afraid that the AIIB (Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank) will not be transparent enough or will not meet international standards.
A: Outside worries and commentaries had an effect in China ensuring that this institution will be high-quality. I met with the leadership of AIIB in Beijing and they reiterated to me their commitment that the bank itself will follow very high international principles, ***it would follow sustainable development concept and clean technology. So I was very encouraged by what I heard…
http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0002059677
Nov 2014: Reuters: For India, China-backed lender may be answer to coal investment
By Manoj Kumar and Tony Munroe
A senior Indian official told Reuters the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), sponsored by China, is expected to allow funding of coal-fired power plants that the World Bank has almost totally blocked.
“When you have 1.3 billion people starved of electricity access and the rest of the world has created a carbon space, at this point denying funding is denying access to cheap energy,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
India sits on the world’s fifth-largest reserves of coal, and the commodity generates three-fifths of India’s power supply. But the demand for electricity far outstrips supply, and according to data compiled by the World Resources Institute in 2012, proposals have been made to set up 455 new coal-fired plants in the country…
Since 2013, the World Bank’s energy strategy limits the financing of coal-fired power plants to “rare circumstances”, making it part of a push by U.S. President Barack Obama to fight climate change…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/06/us-india-aiib-insight-idUSKBN0IP2S020141106
Wikipedia: 2014 Pacific Typhoon Season
The season began with the formation of Tropical Storm Lingling on January 10, 2014; and ended after Tropical Storm Jangmi which dissipated on January 1, 2015. The season was not as active and costly as the previous typhoon season.
Re: “Scientists say…we are reaching planetary boundaries.”
And on and on we hear the same thesis reinvented under differing guises.
Who could ever have imagined in the days of Malthus, that here we would all be nearly two centuries later living prosperous and fruitful lives (by comparison with 1815) and surrounded by great technological wonders.
When I was young the intellectuals of the day were obsessed with the club of Rome and limits to growth.
Some wise people referred them back to the failure of the predictions of Malthus.
And, we had the peak oil predictions, the scare of the 1970’s and Hubbert’s, now broken, curve.
And on and on we go, one failed prediction follows another.
Constantly failing to understand that we cannot imagine the situation in which future people will find themselves. And certainly not prepare for a world 100 years hence.
If we prepare now for 2100, then the people of the future will not thank us for it.
Because our current vision of the problems that they face will inevitably look short-sighted and bizarre. Even a decade seems to be able to throw up massive surprises.
Just as, the people of 1915 had no way of preparing us for the problems that we face today.
For example, the people of 1915 would never have imagined that a group of people called environmentalists would be obstructed the advance of technological progress and access to affordable low-carbon energy.
Nobody could have imagined that environmental pressure groups and academics would have, over several decades, obstructed the expansion of large scale hydro-electrical power generation.
Leaving many of the world’s poor dependent on coal and gas generation and locally sourced wood.
Not only is the future unpredictable, but it takes years of work, just to figure out what is really going on, right now!!!
Hmmmm, “Appeal to Authority” seems to be mostly missing in this discussion.
davidmhoffer April 5, 2015 at 10:11 pm mentions it only in passing:
Ten seconds into the physics, they “tune out”. All that is available at that point is appeal to authority and other tactics of the bottom end of the pyramid.
Yes, “Appeal to Authority” is at the bottom or the pyramid.
From the original article (Graham’s):
Sy 12:15 AM on 6 April, Steve Case had observed that:
…to which Verity Jones had replied with a quotation from Graham’s article cited above:
…missing the point that claiming validity for a recognized authority figure’s pronouncement on a subject only because said source is recognized as an “authority” is a species of argumentum ad hominem perhaps even more invidious than uttering a Semmelweis reflex dismissal when confronted with an “outsider’s” critique of the orthodoxies.
I have a helluva lot of difficulty crediting the notion that any physician or surgeon could possibly get gulled by the great [snip . . mod] “man-made global fill-in-the-blank” climate catastrophe fraud.
In the first year of medical school, we get a “History of Medicine” course in which the story of Ignaz Semmelweis is prominently told. Then in Obstetrics during the second year, we again get the story of how iatrogenic puerperal sepsis – “childbed fever” – killed thousands of women while the “consensus” in obstetrics & gynecology deliberately blanked-out the warnings uttered by Dr. Semmelweis, who was anything but a member of the “establishment.”
Especially because the guy was right, and the big mahoffs in OB/GYN were spreading infectious diseases through the wards. Arrogant sons of bitches.
You tell a physician that he should believe and act upon what “the authorities” say for no other reason than that “the authorities” have said it, and he’ll punch you in the nose.
We have a technical term in medical jurisprudence for a doctor who refuses to maintain a high degree of skepticism with regard to “the authorities,” and thereby abdicates his responsibility to exercise perspicacity and good judgement in each clinical situation.
The word is “defendant.”
You forgot the straw man fallacy, which seems to compose the bulk of political arguments against reason.
Willis,
Thank you for posting this article. I first came upon Graham’s hierarchy a year or two ago and recall laughing because it’s such a true story of how the Interwebs work — and indeed how IRL arguments work — and seeing it distilled to its essence this way was rather powerful. I never did read his original essay though, and the bit you quoted here caused a stumble:
DH5. Refutation. The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation.
I immediately thought, no, DH6, refuting the central point is most convincing, because …
Even as high as DH5 we still sometimes see deliberate dishonesty, as when someone picks out minor points of an argument and refutes those.
So in my view he calls it correctly, I just had to keep reading. Someone who argues at the DH6 level consistently is quite rare. They truly are the best sort as they tend to understand what it means to agreeably disagree.
Brandon
I agree with you. Unfortunately you state your points and questions in an aggressive manner, like you are spoiling for a fight. That is rather off-putting and people probably note and react to your manner , rather than to your words.
Alex,
One of my favourite online debate partners is a fellow from the UK who shares your first name. I was specifically thinking of him when I wrote that post. I’m not superstitious about such happy coincidences, but I do think it’s fun when they happen.
I thank you for your critique and the spirit in which it is given. Sometimes I’m abrasive without knowing it, which is distressing. Other times it’s quite intentional. I reiterate my appreciation of Willis’ call for elevating the debate. On top of others’ recent calls for me to tone it down — which did not make me at all happy — I have been consciously attempting to heed them.
Which is NOT to say I promise to always be “nice” under any and all circumstances. Driessen’s essay yesterday is an example of me choosing to express my ire in no uncertain terms.
Gates says:
Sometimes I’m abrasive without knowing it…
Since it’s been pointed out by more than one reader that Gates totally badmouths both WUWT, and commenters that he disagrees with on the other alarmist blogs where he posts (and in a much more vicious, insulting manner than here — if you can imagine), that comment is just not credible.
Gates knows exactly what he’s doing, and why. A lot of WUWT readers know that, too.
It is amazing the amount of time it takes to comment literally thousands of times here, and an untold number of times on other blogs. Those comments are posted around the clock, during work days and on weekends. What’s the point? I’ve seen no indication that Gates has convinced a single reader to change their view from skeptic to alarmist. A lot of wasted effort there.
‘Fixation’ is not nearly strong enough to describe his rigid belief system. The rest of us observe what is happening to the global temperature, and compare it with the endless predictions by the alarmist crowd, made before global warming stopped — and frightening new predictions made since then, as they re-direct their scare into more predictions of climate doom.
It’s all preposterous nonsense. There is nothing unusual or unprecedented happening. Anyone can see that. In fact, temperatures and every other global parameter are completely normal. So why do Gates and his ilk try to convince us there is a problem?
There are several reasons. First, there’s money and fame. That is the motivation of the eco-stars of the climate scare, like Mann, Trenberth, etc. They love to travel to holiday venues at the expense of taxpayers and others. In school they were nerds, and they never dreamed they would be the equivalent of rock stars.
Then there’s the motivation of those who took a position early on, and having argued that position for many years, they cannot change their minds. They view that as a climbdown. So rather than admit that they were flat wrong, they argue incessantly, on lots of blogs — some of the more fixated ones posting thousands of comments in a failed effort to convince people that the climate hoax is valid. Guess who does that more than anyone? As Leo Tolstoy wrote:
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.
At some point it stops being a debate, and devolves into borderline insanity. When someone cannot convince a single person to change his mind, after years of effort and thousands of attempts, only abnormal people will keep digging that hole. As Marcus Aurelius, the great Roman emperor and student of human nature wrote two thousand years ago:
“The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
We’re surrounded by insane alarmists. Our job is to understand that, and to avoid being one of the lemmings who blindly accept the media’s narrative. Fortunately, most scientific skeptics think for themselves. All we are really saying is: prove it. Or at least, produce convincing evidence that there is the great cause for concern that you believe in.
But to date, they’ve got nothin’. That explains their hate, and their cross-posting to other blogs, and the incessant name-calling (deniers, denialists, contrarians, etc. cf: Michael Mann), and their arguing from the bottom of the pyramid. But as they die off one by one, only the truth remains. So after wasting $billions and more, eventually we will get back to normal — just like the climate.
dbstealey,
Let’s rewind, shall we?
Sometimes I’m abrasive without knowing it, which is distressing. Other times it’s quite intentional. I reiterate my appreciation of Willis’ call for elevating the debate. On top of others’ recent calls for me to tone it down — which did not make me at all happy — I have been consciously attempting to heed them.
Protip: quotemining works best when the full context of what you’re spinning isn’t on THE EXACT SAME PAGE.
Word of the day:
cred·i·ble
ˈkredəb(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: credible
able to be believed; convincing.
“few people found his story credible”
synonyms: believable, plausible, tenable, able to hold water, conceivable, likely, probable, possible, feasible, reasonable, with a ring of truth, persuasive
“only one of the so-called witnesses could provide a credible story”
capable of persuading people that something will happen or be successful.
“a credible threat”
synonyms: believable, plausible, tenable, able to hold water, conceivable, likely, probable, possible, feasible, reasonable, with a ring of truth, persuasive
“only one of the so-called witnesses could provide a credible story”
YMMV, HTH, though I’m mindful of the saying, “You can’t teach an old dog new tricks.” One wonders if attack poodles are an exception to the rule … thus far it ain’t looking that way.
Hey, just wanted to let you all know, some of you are really very funny to read.
Funny, amusing or funny, peculiar?
Funny as in witty and entertaining.
(Some, not all.)
So no need to go all Joe ” What, I amuse you?” on me.
🙂
Ugh. Phones!
Joe Pesci that is.
In my experience with left-of-center disputants online, there is a reliable tendency to whine about adventitious insult (which I consider nothing more than entertaining efforts at parsimoniously and accurately categorizing the average progtard’s idiocy and moral character), tendered in addition to on-point critique of their positions, as being “ad hominem.”
This reveals the fact that many (probably most) of these friggin’ schmucks are as the beasts that perish when it comes to knowledge of formal logic, emphasis on the nature of the fallacy called argumentum ad hominem, which is the use of an “attack on the man” to evade the responsibility to provide an “attack on the position” under consideration.
I strongly suspect that these blitheringly uneducated jackwads use the expression “ad hominem” simply because they think – if they can be said to think at all – that by peppering their spew with latinate polysyllables, they can appear erudite.
Or even, perhaps, speciously literate.
Wrong!
Thank you to Verity Jones! Too long since i have heard from her 🙂
Very useful graphic, and thank you to Willis for bringing it to our attention.
Good to have in the toolbox for climate debate.
Kind Regards, Frank
Oh … I get it. This is an efficiency chart! The width of each colored region is roughly the ratio of the “personal satisfaction gained” to “effort expended.”
Well, with this in mind, the person who came up with this graphic is obviously an ass hat. There, I just achieved maximum efficiency in Internet confrontational discourse. 😉
Too busy to say much, except that this pyramid, while useful as a visual “bite”, is inadequate and overspecific to describe the range of discourse in a debate. IMO the Logical Fallacy Bingo site presents a much broader and more useful overview of ways one can argue badly. A second point that is omitted is that the figure presupposes that it is possible to e.g. refute/disprove the central point (assuming that there IS a “central” point and not an entire spectrum of points). But in most cases of interest, the reason that there is an argument at all is that there is disagreement at a more fundamental level than the argument itself. Arguments concerning religion are an excellent example. What constitutes “good evidence”? How do you argue with someone who holds different axioms as a basis for their arguments than you do for yours?
If humans were rational enough to be convinced by simple logic and evidence in combination, would any world religions exist at all? They are supremely illogical and are completely unsupported by anything like sound evidence. The definitions of the religions themselves are basically long, self-contradictory polemics that reduces to the “logical” argument “This sentence is true because I say it is true”, and by the way, invisible pink unicorns are the basis of Universal Gravitation.”
One cannot prove or disprove an axiom (or proposition, or postulate). They are the assumptions upon which “proof” of any sort relies. If two individuals have different axioms, they can argue all day and strongly disprove each other’s assertions with the very best of logic, and yet one will never convince the other because the disproof of one isn’t valid for the other.
The very first step, in other words, the “fundmental prior” to having any sort of reason-based discussion of some hypothesis, is to agree on the set of propositions that constitutes a “worldview” (or ontology). If those propositions disagree — for example, if one set allows for “evidence” in the form of hearsay concerning an invisible world where infinite/eternal punishments and rewards are meted out and the other doesn’t — argumentation is just a waste of time.
rgb
rgbatduke: “[I]f one set allows for “evidence” in the form of hearsay concerning an invisible world where infinite/eternal punishments and rewards are meted out and the other doesn’t — argumentation is just a waste of time.”
I can’t resist observing, though, that Dr. Brown’s own silver-wire proof was based on his unfounded assumptions about what physical laws would prevail in a parallel universe that features non-zero equilibrium lapse rates.
Oh, I agree that in the thermodynamic limit the equilibrium lapse rate is zero. But it can be demonstrated that Dr. Brown’s unfounded assumptions lay at the base of his attempt to prove it by showing that the contrary assumption leads to perpetual undriven net heat flow. Worse, defending that argument led him to adopt bad physics.
Theologians are not the only ones who base their arguments on invisible worlds.
“How do you argue with someone who holds different axioms as a basis for their arguments than you do for yours?”
It is always possible to accept the set of axioms as hypotheticals. But of course, without agreeing on the set of grounding propositions for the rest, we don’t even begin on a chain of logic.
“One cannot prove or disprove an axiom (or proposition, or postulate). They are the assumptions upon which “proof” of any sort relies.”
This is only correct within the limit of what we consider a valid axiom. Classically, if the axiom could be generated as a consequence of further and deeper axioms then it was necessarily a logical consequence and so could not be used as an axiom. Though, as a practical matter, it’s simply enough to accept a grounding proposition hypothetically whether or not it meets that strict criterion. Regardless to either, you certainly cannot ‘prove’ a valid axiom. But there remains the possibility in all cases to disprove it experimentally. And, for a set of axioms, to demonstrate a contradiction arising from the set; which disproves the soundness of the set itself. Where ‘contradiction’ can be a purely logical contradiction (by the rules of logic) or by a claimed consequence arising from the axioms that is contradicted by experimental evidence.
Without meaning to put the vise to you, this is all basic logic itself. Which has nothing to do with what educational institutions promulgate or whether people have sussed through texts that have a history older than the point at which we flipped the calendar from BC to AD on the basis of pink unicorns.
The existence of god is not dependent on religion. There is an intriguing argument for such made by Richard Swinburne in a book called, oddly enough, The Existence of God. Basically, it’s a Bayesian argument that establishes god’s existence is more likely than his/her/its [delete whichever is inapplicable] non-existence. Much to The Git’s amusement, the probability of god’s existence falls to zero in the absence of a mind to believe in god’s existence. This casts creation in quite a different light than usual 🙂
Wow … I did not know that about Universal Gravitation …
You learn something new everyday if you want to …
Refutation can work when arguing about science, or concrete facts. Most arguments, are political in nature, and all that’s being argued is personal perference.
Note that AGW fits into the “political” category. Will the earth warm ! C or more with a doubling of CO2?
Even if the answer was yes, “science” doesn’t answer the political question, “would this warming be good or bad, and if so, should we be doing anything about it? It’s these POLITICAL arguments using “science” as a crutch that drive me nuts.
Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
–
Worth noting. Also worth taking the time to do your homework and develop a good refutation. Otherwise, many people would rather be wrong than corrected. Just let it go.
The first post of Willis’s I’ve actually enjoyed reading. Succinct and to the point, without any waffle.
Applying this model to Michael Mann or the Archbishop of Canterbury, it is possible and very satisfying to combine all the levels.
Refutation.
Often the alarmists argue by claiming to refute with a link they provide. Yet when the link is read there is no authentic refutation at all. When one returns from their recommended link and points out the vacuous nature of their suggested refuting the conversation stalls.
wotts, SS & TP are typical links.
BTW look at this pathetic reaction to EPA head.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/04/03/3642142/gop-wants-to-learn-climate-models/
A couple of points. First, I don’t post much here, mostly because I’ve seen it all and don’t need to re-post what is common knowledge here. As to Willis’ usual postscript, I’ve adhered to it for a couple of decades + now. I used to hang out on David Wojick’s (sp?) Climate Debate (proto)blog, back before there was an internet. I always quoted the things i was arguing against and demanded/encouraged others to do the same.
Second, I’m a devout Christian, and while i don’t proselytize much these days, I will say that having done so in various places, attracted the attention of a lady who has now been my wife for nearly 20 years so doing so is not without value even if it doesn’t seem to bear fruit on the surface.
But since this subject has arisen (no pun on yesterday being Easter), I want to make an attempt at a “refuting the central point” argument, This refers to the gentleman stating that “As a devout atheist myself, I don’t take kindly to being told stuff that I think is pure crap (because it has no basis in evidence)”
It seems to me his main point amounts to: “the Christian godhead cannot be a God because a God would do miracles and therefore the many miracles attested to in the NT and OT must be false because there cannot be a God.” This is circular reasoning and therefore invalid. QED
A perfect example of the straw man argument.
So are you talking to me or the devout atheist? In either case, your micropost is a perfect example of why one should quote what you’re arguing against..
Indeed. The phrase “It seems to me his main point amounts to” is another version of the “in other words” straw man mentioned up thread:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/05/agreeing-to-disagree/#comment-1898984
If the “amounts to” argument is circular, it’s because Daved46 (who wrote it) made it so, meaning he just refuted his own argument.
Dang, I learned something today! Thanks, Willis, George E Smith, and Daved46!
There is no central point. There is a thesis with many points and a conclusion. If you disagree with the conclusion you’ll be accused of being anti science. If you go to the points the journalists won’t follow you complaining that the story is “going into the weeds.”
I like this logical fallacy poster.
I’d like it on a t-shirt so that when people are droning on I could point to the fallacies as they make them.
http://www.franklinveaux.com/venn-poster-large.jpg
You can click on the poster to enlarge it.
This is pretty cool. I’ve downloaded it. Willis’s graphic has been around forever. I was hitting warmists over the head with it on FB threads three or four years ago already.
I agree this post for the most part. The pinnacle of the pyramid should be the main goal and focus but the bottom of the pyramid can be hilarious. So come on how about a ratio of say every 5 “pinnacle points” we get a bottom sarcasm. ☺
Just watch the comments here and witness a poster child debate.
Wesley Clark, retired general speaking at Lewis & Clark Monday, calls for carbon tax to boost national security
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2015/04/wesley_clark_retired_general_c.html
Climate change will be catastrophic to national security unless countries address it with measures such as a U.S. carbon tax, says retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who will speak Monday in Portland.
Clark, a former Democratic presidential-primary candidate who remains influential in policy circles, believes climate change helped cause the war in Syria and conflict across East Africa.
Speaking in a telephone interview Friday, Clark said a carbon tax could be made palatable by boosting U.S. oil and gas production as a start, thereby uniting left and right political wings.
“If we don’t take serious methods in the decades to come to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases, we’re building catastrophe in national-security terms,” said Clark, who led NATO forces to victory in Kosovo. “Not only in the United States, but worldwide, we’ll see pestilence, famines and revolutions.”
I wrotne General Wesley Clark off as an idiot when he was running for president several cycles ago, and stated that the American Revolution was based on a desire for a more “progressive tax”.
Alan McIntire,
Back then we called him ‘Weaselly Clark’. He hasn’t changedf.
I would distinguish a couple of other types of interaction:
1) With poor reading comprehension, someone attempts to refute a confused idea of what they read. It is not a strawman because a strawman is often a deliberate debating tactic.
2) Picking out a minor or irrelevant part of the argument to refute.
3) Writing such an incoherent reply that no one knows what you are saying.
Another type of argument is by assertion. For example, when you call the fit of GCMs to data “excellent” when other people looking at the same data are bewildered how you could say that. If the “data” going in to the debate is defined as excellent, this is an attempt to subvert any dissent. In this case what is lacking is any agreed criterion as to what “excellent” means or how to judge. If the advocate gets to judge the quality of the models than skeptics clearly must just be using motivated reasoning.
Point irrefutably proven by Craig Loehle’s excellent comments! But seriously… or perhaps not so seriously… those guys who post pics of their wives who look like they went under a road roller and captioned, “My gorgeous wife Xxxxx.” Stupid, but it’s at the same level as the debater posting a link to an extremely weak argument. You thought I was a damfool for marrying this creature or for believing that polar bears are going extinct but see, here’s another damfool who agrees with me! What would you call this fallacy, Craig?
Whatever we love is beautiful–our kids, our wives, our theories. Rose-colored glasses.
@ Craig Loehle
Or perhaps we love those who love us. And love has nothing whatsoever to do with the physics, it’s metaphysics all the way down 🙂
Incidentally, most of the argument about climate is not deductive, or inductive; it’s abductive (aka Inference to the Best Explanation).
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/
Good post Willis, thank you.
There is, also, disagreement about unstated premises. Let me quote (summarizing) economist David Friedman:
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/My_Posts/My_View_of_Oughts.html
“[I]t is very hard to come to an agreement on the assumed facts surrounding the situations we are judging. My imaginary capitalist has capital because he worked hard clearing part of the boundless forest … His imaginary capitalist inherited his capital from a father who stole it. ”
Beginning with the same word for a nearly identical concept — here, “capital” / a pile of wealth — the argument between two people diverges before it takes the first step, based on individual perceptions of what sorts of people hold it and what sorts of actions can be fairly assumed about how they arrived at that condition.
And I don’t see where or how differences of this sort show up in the pyramid. I consider Hansen’s projections about climate — some of which are based on what he calls “Business As Usual” — are intentionally critical of free-market and business-like approaches to human problems and allocation of resources. Fairly quoting here, an example is here: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/09/29/332369/nasa-hansen-the-southern-u-s-will-become-almost-uninhabitable/
I concede the possibility this word choice might be unconscious on his part but I believe an anti-business, pro-control philosophy biases his entire approach to the problem, if any, and the possible solution, also if any. Others may see the phrase “business as usual” as non-judgemental synonymous terminology for “ceteras parabis” — if nothing else except this is considered as the changing factor — and therefore suppose Hansen’s biases, if any, arise from non-economic roots and more from his personal morality — if any.
It makes objective discussion difficult.
I note, by the way, that the Texas drought conditions Hansen and Romm discussed in the quoted story have been substantially though not completely alleviated by recent rains.
Willis – Thanks again for the post, food for thought. Also, just an observation – this may qualify for the most terse submission that you have ever posted!!
Regards,
MCR
The pyramid diagram ought to be organized with respect to color better. For example, if we colored the diagram starting with flaming fucsia at the bottom, and work our way up through cooler and more pleasant colors, ending with mint green at the top, then we could just color code arguments.
In a private industry there is a process and an appointed neutral moderator/lead investigator to ensure technical problems (for example the investigation into what caused a plane crash) are resolved, scientifically without prejudice, with no hidden agendas. There is a defined process for private industry technical investigation that always includes deliverables such as documentation of observations, analysis, arguments and counter arguments to enable any knowledgeable person to understand/verify the central issues, arguments, and counter arguments, and conclusions. The lead investigator and the investigating team must ensure the investigation is complete and unbiased.
In private industry paradoxes and anomalies are not ignored, as they logically indicate there are one or more fundamental issues/errors with the based theories, assumptions, and conclusions. In private industry hiding a paradox or anomaly in an investigation (for example a plane crash investigation) is grounds for firing and possible prosecution of those involved in the ‘cover up’. In private industry hiding or changing data is grounds for firing or possible prosecution.
As Ad Hominen and Responding to tone is purposeless and counterproductive, in private industry it is strictly forbidden. There are seminars in private industry that teach employees how to resolve problems effectively. In private industry a technical person (employees) must change their mind when observations and logic support the counter theory.
In private industry a person would be fired for name calling or appealing to an absurd non logical pillar such as the statement that an assertion must be correct as 97% of a group of people believe it to be correct and then adamantly avoiding any discussion of the details to support the specific assertions.
The IPCC team was/is a handpicked group of biased believers with direct influence of NGOs and political special interest groups. The IPCC mandate was to develop ‘sciency’ looking documentation to support a foregone conclusion. The IPCC is not an independent investigation of the issues.
What makes this surreal mad scenario more interesting is it appears there will be in your face observation evidence (planet significantly cools, atmospheric level CO2 significantly drops, and ocean level significantly drops) that all of the IPCC assertions were incorrect.
The practices you ascribe to private industry have accountability as one of their roots. unfortunately, academia not so much.
The ‘food for thought’ pyramid 😉 and the Venn diagram are excellent graphics, but they convey more information than is necessary. The classic dichotomy between Logic and Rhetoric covers it all for me.
Logic is used to prove a proposition using facts with the rigor of abstract algebra; Rhetoric is used to persuade an audience with emotion, regardless of the facts.
Nearly all of the Logical Fallacies find their utility solely in the domain of Rhetoric.
Unfortunately, once a mind has been ‘made up’ (subverted) by rhetoric, it is maintained with the strength of Faith marked by an unquestioning loyalty to ‘what is’, an aversion to novelty, and an unwillingness to even consider concepts that may threaten established doctrine. The Faithful will only abandon Error upon their individual deaths. Thus Truth can only prevail over Error in the long run due to it’s longevity.
It is important for Truth to present itself to uncommitted minds as soon as possible so they are equipped with a reference when Error first tries to sell itself. It is important for young minds to become Enlightened before they join the Faithful.
At 11:06 AM on 6 April, tadchem had posted:
That’s a helluva construe on the word “rhetoric,” which is the art or study of using language effectively and persuasively, “an art that aims to improve the capability of writers or speakers to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations.”
The evocation of emotion might be employed in the art – the better to get and hold an audience’s attention – but it’s the information and persuasion that matter. To use language in peddling lies….
Well, that’s not rhetoric per se. Better to use the words “propaganda” and “fraud” and “political language,” which last is:
Or so said the estimable Mr. Blair
The lead post’s ‘pyramind’ graphic may be a way to bring out discussion of argument rhetorical modes although it does not enumerate all rhetorical modes. Without referencing the ‘pyramid’ a simple articulation of the rules of logic (correct thinking) during a dialog seems the most direct method to achieve closure.
John
Here’s another pyramid:
http://postimg.org/image/5zsn8e963
I’ve just eaten (BBQ) but still loving that pyramid 😉
It’s all renewable. What’s not to like ?
You are an ass hat, Willis.
whiten April 6, 2015 at 11:46 am
whiten, thanks for your kind comments. I have no doubt that Janice’s intentions were to be good and kind. As they say, that makes great paving material for the road to the place of eternal CO2 generating combustion. Her intentions are not in question. And I am clear that my tone was over the top, and I apologized to her for that. But her actions were way out of line.
The curious part of the whole incident to me was that Janice never uttered one word of disagreement or complaint about what I said. This left the field wide open for folks like those above to excoriate me for my actions—they were free to project their own feelings and resentments onto Janice without fear of contradiction. They could claim on her behalf to be hugely insulted and outraged … when in fact we have no idea how she took the whole situation.
However, I still say that she was doing her best to sell me Jesus. Read her comment again. I’d said that Death itself was my best and most trusted advisor. She opens by telling me my beliefs are wrong and will bring little lasting comfort:
Classic sales technique. First you have to make the potential buyer unhappy with their present position. Would you approve of a Muslim attacking a Christian’s beliefs in that manner after he gives a Christian eulogy? Here you go, here’s a sample …
Jesus is a liar??? Doesn’t sound so appropriate now, does it? Would you say that to a grieving Christian?
Then she offers her solution, special today. I should give up entirely on what I believe and what my experience has led me to, and I should turn to
Sorry, my friend, but despite doing it with the purest of intentions and the mildest of manners she is using the occasion of my grief at my father-in-law’s death to try to sell me Jesus. I find that reprehensible. (There’s some quotes, special for Mosh, thanks for reminding me.)
Now, I don’t demand that everyone find it reprehensible. But for me, in that time and place her actions were way, way out of line. I see that there are folks that don’t like that, and want to lecture me on proper behavior towards Janice. To all of you, let me repeat. Janice is a grown woman. You folks speaking on her behalf are perpetuating the myth of the weak woman who can’t protect herself. If she has something to say she is free to say it. I have offered before and offer again, if she wants to discuss any of this with me, I’m happy to do so.
But discuss it with some third party who is offended on her behalf? Sorry, but in this kind of situation I talk only to the person in question. The professionally offended class who pretend to speak for her will have to seek satisfaction elsewhere.
Note that I don’t include you in that class, whiten. You are pushing for reconciliation, which is appreciated. Look, I have no ongoing beef with Janice. I don’t like her using my grief as an excuse to try to convert me, but I doubt she’ll do that again. I don’t think she’s a bad person.
Thanks for your contribution,
w.
Essential to this topic is that the “central point” one is arguing must be on such a pyramid – anywhere that could be addressed.
Belief – religious, climate, CO2 – is not on the pyramid. It can’t be argued. You can attempt to convert belief, but that is a completely different matter and usually a failing matter. IMO
It would be easy to be a good Christian
if it weren’t for all these people.
But it’s more fun being an idiot:
http://www.sturmsoft.com/Writing/Images/leunig_idiot.gif
Willis, while understand your point, your remarks about Jesus would be extremely offensive to a Muslim. Jesus is a Muslim and a Prophet in Islam. No Muslim would ever refer to Jesus as a liar. Quoting you:
Please note that I am not offended, for myself or on behalf of anyone else; I am agnostic. But I do note that Muslims are rather touchy about remarks regarding their faith.
All of these argumentation techniques exist for good reasons.
Consider transactional analysis, TA, “I’m Okay, You’re Okay” (book by that title). The idea is that you communicate only when people are taking complementary roles.
If a person signals that she is at the bottom of this pyramid, the only meaningful response is also at the bottom. You could go up or down one level and still be comprehended but even that’s a guess.
But since we are debating in public, you guess at the comprehension level of the public and make your pitch to them.
The person that responds to “You are an idiot” (I don’t like you) with an explanation of how adenosine triphosphate is regenerated in human cells (look how smart I am) is going to be seen as seriously debate challenged. A better response might be “At least I am not your idiot!” (I don’t like you, either).
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/biology/atp.html
We Just Disagree
Max 57-62?
you sure them 70s tunes.
53 at the end of this month 🙂
I find one of the great joys of the internet is being able to effortlessly pull up ‘blasts from the past’ … music and memories just seem to go together.
But I also really enjoy contemporary music. For example, I was just listening to this beauty as I came across your post:
I hate when that happens.
Just search YouTube for:
Loz Contreras – Sarajevo (Blackmill Remix)
Here, I’ll try again …
This is a Procrustean Bed.
A Procrustean solution is the undesirable practice of tailoring data to fit its container or some other preconceived structure.
Now it’s called Common Core.
someone says,
We must place a new pinnacle on the top of the diagram. The Pink Unicorn. Everything beneath this assertion is Pink Unicorns. 😀
On the question of BC/AD terminology, I suggest we leave intact the notation conventionally used for generations, BC and AD, with a simple additional AB at c. 1960.
AB is short for “After Boomers.” In order to acknowledge that the Cannabis Generation arrived, and declared their own personal unicorns (which are many) are all unvarnished, unbiased, pure-as-the-driven-snow white (definitely not pink), and in order to show our gratitude for their authority and clarity on unicorns, we surely must designate time since Baby Boomers as AB.
So now I also want a new base for the argument triangle – “fun with another communicator’s sincerely held analogies.”
you mean trolling for sport 🙂
Inability to let a flippant remark simply lie, and making a flippant remark in kind and according to measure, is more of a character weakness than anything else.
what?
“So now I also want a new base for the argument triangle – “fun with another communicator’s sincerely held analogies.” Wouldn’t you agree that that is essentially trolling?
No, I retain the right to refute a pink mythological creature with a white mythological creature, without being called a mythological creature!
oh whew… I was making a funny….I was too brief. Cheers
I offer my thanks and congratulations to Willis Eschenbach and Verity Jones for hitting the philosophical nail on its head. In debates about global warming, logical discourse is a rarity.
I have had this on my this on my bookmarks list for about eight years
http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/04/07/writing-strong-arguments/
And although my memory has become significantly less reliable lately I seem to recall linking it in comments here at least 2 or 3 times over the years. It is often argued that unless you have specific scientific knowledge and skills you can’t reasonably criticize the work of the work of “climate scientists”, particularly those affiliated with the IPCC, but from my point of view an analysis based on argumentation types is sufficient to discredit most of the “science” produced in re the CO2 demon. I’m thinking especially of the numerous efforts at statistical jiggerypokery put forth in support of the 97% notion in one form or another over the last several years. And while the ad hominem attack has become the preferred mode for the climate alarmists I must admit that even those who I would like to agree with are hardly immune from this kind of shoddy work.
As for myself, I have always freely admitted that I haven’t a clue about what the climate will do over the next 85 to 100 years, but after wasting way more of the last decade of my rapidly declining remainder of life than any real smart guy would consider prudent rummaging through what passes for science on this topic I have yet to come across anyone who is convincingly better situated than me in that regard.
One got missed:
Every time I post an article or information of a forum, all the ACC numpties come running in with “WUWT is a known denier website – of course it’s going to have the sceptic’s lies on it”
They don’t attack the site or you, they don’t even bother to read the articles – just being on a “known denier website” auto-invalidates anything you post.
Casey,
That one is pretty easy to counter. When someone writes that WUWT (or similar) is a ‘denier’, ‘denialist’, etc., call them to account. Point out exactly what they’re doing, and add that their comment shows that they have no credible argument. You post facts — but they respond with ad hominem name-calling.
Make them argue facts. If they continue name-calling, then continue to point out that they’ve got nothin’. Even if they don’t see it, everyone else will.
There is not a logical way in which a derogatory characterization of a person or institution can result in a valid conclusion about our climate. Thus, it would be better were participants in this blog to refrain from posting derogatory characterizations.
Terry Oldberg,
Thanks. I agree, and I would add that commenters here should refrain from defending those name-callers. That makes them pretty much the same, IMHO.
As for WUWT earning its reputation, it has, and deservedly so. Its reputation is as the internet’s premier “Best Science” site. No other blog comes close — and all the alarmist blogs trail far behind. Most of them aren’t even in the running. They couldn’t make the playoffs.
People want to read all sides of the debate, and not be spoon-fed alarmist pablum. That’s what they get from realclimate, tamina, ‘skeptical’science, and hotwhopper. Here at WUWT the truth gets sifted from the pseudo-science through uncensored conversation and debate. That’s why WUWT has such a great reputation — despite the odd, nasty comments that pop up here and there.
Hear hear!
Ron House:
WUWT won the “Best Science” category three times running. Therefore, by the rules WUWT cannot run again. It is the undefeated champion — but you can be certain that if it were allowed to run again, it would wipe the floor with every alarmist blog there is, and all your favorites would go down in flames, just like they did before.
Now, why don’t you explain why you never have anything good to say about WUWT?
Ron House asks:
Why did the Bloggies discontinue the category?
Now you want me to do your homework for you? As if.
Go ask them yourself. If you’re not capable of doing that, then just sit in front of your monitor in slack jawed wonder.
With that, we can agree to disagree, as the title says. Fair enough?
Ron House says:
… it was discovered that the voting was being “gamed”
Bunch of carp from sore losers like you.
Prove it.
We get it: you’re a hater. You hate the fact that WUWT won the Weblog Awards for “Best Science” site every time it was entered. So now you’re trying to feed us your load of horse manure, claiming that every year WUWT cheated.
Projection, no more and no less: I recall reading on realclimate and on SkS comments by their readers during the voting, saying that they had programmed computers to cast multiple votes. Other readers said they had multiple computers, and used sockpuppet names to cast multiple votes.
They still lost.
And in every contest, Anthony posted warnings to readers, saying he absolutely discourages anyone gaming the system. Anthony repeatedly told his readers that if WUWT couldn’t win fair and square, that we would lose fair and square. WUWT won. Those posts are still in the comments, anyone can find them.
So we have Anthony telling readers not to cheat — and alarmist blogs openly encouraging cheating.
WUWT still won. Three times running.
WUWT has exploded in popularity, going from nothing eight years ago, to almost a quarter BILLION unique views. That means a lot of lurkers here. And there have been far more than one million unique reader comments. Do the math: WUWT has more than enough potential votes to swamp any alarmist blog. So they lie about it — because they’re sore losers. You know what? That makes them losers.
Therefore, Ron House, either someone is lying to you, and you swallowed it hook, line and sinker — or you are lying.
Which?
Ron House,
Now you are just trolling — imputing evil motives onto our host, with no evidence whatever. You have run out of arguments, so you fall back on your hating.
Go away. You add nothing to the conversation except your bile. This is a science site; the internet’s “Best Science” site. It isn’t a blog for haters.
The poor quality of the case for acute alarm over our CO2 emissions has been increasingly accompanied by poor quality argumentation. Perhap that was inevitable. Eschenbach, on the other hand, strikes me as someone who enjoys good debate, and who has set himself high standards. This pyramid graphic is welcome, and should encourage us all to emulate him.
Perhaps Verity Jones could have made his point with a little less visual plagiarism?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs.png
[img]http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Maslow’s_hierarchy_of_needs.png[/img]
Also, the original diagram (after Maslow) at least has the sense to use shaded outlines on the low-contrast colour combinations.
Where does “Your argument demonstrates poor photoshop skills, therefore your reasoning is suspect” go on the pyramid?
terrahertz,
Just FYI: Verity Jones is a woman. A very intelligent woman. You could even look it up.
Brandon Gates April 7, 2015 at 12:59 pm
Thanks, Brandon. So if that’s Arhennius’s falsifiable prediction, would it be falsified by e.g. 18 years of increasing “carbonic acid” with absolutely no concomitant increase in temperature?
If your answer is no, eighteen years of no temperature increase wouldn’t falsify Arhennius’s falsifiable hypothesis, then perhaps you could enlighten us as to just what would falsify it.
Regards,
w.
Thanks Willis,
Brandon, you said:
Is that what kids these days are calling “bait and switch”?
Here’s what I asked originally Brandon:
Where is there a falsifiable hypothesis/theory of anthropogenic global warming, or anthropogenic climate change, as it stands in April, 2015?
Comments don’t get surreptitiously modified here so anyone can scroll back up to there to see what I wrote originally. So you see there was no bait and switch, except in your cognitively dissonant/deceitful head.
Thankfully Willis has falsified your falsifiable 1896 conjecture/hypothesis/theory, so please do try again in real time (2015).
Willis,
(Again thanks. With science and its funding being such a jealous mistress, I shouldn’t really be on here).
Your Arrhenius quote is also an eye-opener. The Beer-Lambert Law (might have had other names then) originated at least five decades before 1896. Geometric …. arithmetic … wow. It might not be exactly first-order logarithmic from 280 – 400, but still … wow.
Willis,
That’s the question at hand. I say yes — it’s a testable proposition. What’s your answer?
Let’s not conflate “falsifiability” with “falsified” and pretend the goalposts didn’t move. Since this is a thread about debate and upping our game, I’ll take the opportunity for a teaching moment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_question
I consider it a foul, and try to only do it when my interlocutor is acting like an arse. Which is, well, a lot. So it’s gotten habitual for me as well.
That’s a new one Brandon – it doesn’t count because it’s off-topic, waaaaah.
Try again, Phil. I didn’t say “it doesn’t count”. I’m making two points of order there according to my conception of higher-level debate … which, by the way, IS the original topic of this post.
In the quote from Arrhenius, is the “temperature” a quantity that can be measured by a thermometer? If so Arrhenius’s contention is falsified by the fact that this “temperature” sometimes declines as the CO2 level increases.. Perhaps Arrhenius’s “temperature” is the equilibrium aka steady-state temperature. In this case, Arrhenius’s contention is not falsifiable for the equilibrium temperature cannot be measured. Either his contention is false or it is not falsifiable.
It’s steady state, Terry, and yes I figured that was going to be your objection, as I alluded to below.
Brandon, regarding falsifying Arrhenius, let me offer you a few quotes from Science Magazine from six years ago, 2009 (emphasis mine):
So according to all of those good folks, the Arrhenius hypothesis is already falsified. We did NOT see “rapid warming in the next 5 years” as forecast. We did not see warming resuming “in the next few years”.
Now, if the scientists in question who made those statements were forthright, they’d admit that the pause has exceeded the generous limits they set, and that their hypothesis is falsified according to their own criteria … dream on.
w.
Would anyone care to share with me what Arrhenius’s falsifiable hypothesis is?
Well I think Willis had a shot at it. Brandon is the self-proclaimed expert on this, so maybe you need to be patient (the goalposts on this thread are getting a bit too heavy for him to move methinks, or he could be sleeping. Is he in Australia ?).
I also have a post in moderation that I don’t think he’ll file in his 2015 faves folder.
I see he just answered Willis, sort of
philincalifornia,
I’m still awake … attentions were simply elsewhere for a while. The only goalpost moving I’m doing is to put it back where you staked it in your first post. The next time you ask someone for a falsifiable hypothesis/theory, it behoves you to be prepared to demonstrate an understanding of what those terms mean to you. Which opportunity is still very much available to you.
I am NO expert. I will gladly give you or anyone my opinion or understanding of what I read in literature, and tell you what my conclusions and beliefs are based on what I read … and here’s the key … when I think the question has been asked honestly. Since I cannot always tell, I tend to err on the side of answering the first one. My behaviour after that is very much contingent on the response:
1) I don’t suffer bottom-feeding bullshit “debate” tactics gladly.
2) If you wish to discuss science like an honest truth-seeker and a rational adult without the cheap shots and insults, I’m happy to do so.
Pretty simple ROE, if you ask me. I invite you to test me on (2) and see how it goes for us.
Terry Oldberg,
Nothing you and I haven’t discussed before, but I did bury it above in my longish reply to philincalifornia earlier today:
A copy of the 1896 paper is available here: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf
The introductory modern-day editorial makes this interesting point:
Contrary to some misunderstandings, Arrhenius does not explicitly suggest in this paper that the burning of fossil fuels will cause global warming, though it is clear that he is aware that fossil fuels are a potentially significant source of carbon dioxide (page 270), and he does explicitly suggest this outcome in later work.
The 1896 paper gave an estimate for ECS between 5-6 K per CO2 doubling, which he revised down in a 1906 paper to 3.9 K: http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Arrhenius%201906,%20final.pdf
IIRC, your core argument — or at least the one I recall best — is that since the system is never in equilibrium, the proposition as stated isn’t falsifiable.
Brandon:
That’s it except that what Arrhenius means by “temperature” is ambiguous. If he means the quantity that is measurable by a thermometer then his contention is falsified by the evidence. If he means the equilibrium temperature then his contention is not falsifiable. In either case, Arrhenius’s contention is scientifically and logically improper.
Terry Oldberg,
I’ve written several other places on this thread already: equilibrium surface temperature.
I declare by similar fiat: you’re wrong.
Brandon
You’ve mislabeled a concept. Rather than being a fiat, that the equilibrium surface temperature is insusceptible to being observed is a fact.
This is getting super-tedious, but I’ll try again:
Where is there a falsifiable hypothesis/theory of anthropogenic global warming, or anthropogenic climate change, as it stands in April, 2015?
[facepalm]
Truly your best answer.
There isn’t one.
Not significantly changed since 1896. Look up: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/05/agreeing-to-disagree/#comment-1900282
If you don’t agree that Arrhenius provides a testable, and therefore falsifiable, hypothesis, it is incumbent on you to explain why you don’t think so.
I’ve explained that for you. Do you capitulate or do we have to continue this farce?
Willis showed that that one has been falsified, so you need a new one.
Why is it so difficult ? Seriously, why is it so difficult ?
Phone a friend. Is Nick Stokes up ?
The really strange thing about this particular farce Terry, is that I could probably write 6 or 10 alternative falsifiable hypotheses in an hour that would pass muster with you and Willis. There would be caveats, such as the 280 – 400 ppm thing is all anthropogenic, and that global temperature anomaly is a real metric (I know that’s a stretch), but WTF ? …..
philincalifornia:
Well said. It is easy to state falsifiable hypotheses. One could state a dozen of them in an hour. However, it is hard to avoid falsification of them when they are tested. If one’s falsifiable hypothesis were to be falsified one might lose one’s sinecure. The solution (if one is unprincipled): avoid making falsifiable hypotheses while seeming to make them!
philincalifornia,
Because it’s like trying to explain the colour purple to a blind man. You know the word “falsifiable”, but don’t demonstrate an ability to define it for yourself. When Willis conflated “falsifiable” with “falsified” you didn’t pick up on the fact that he’d dodged YOUR question about “falsifiability”. Nor does it appear to have occurred to you that Willis implicitly defined his own hypothesis and provided “evidence” of its “falsification”.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand how to have an orderly, rational dialog with someone? Seriously, why is that so difficult? Are you still beating your wife?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
Am I getting through yet?
Nope Brandon. Phony passive aggressiveness ain’t gonna do it.
You really need to f**k off and stop trying to pretend you’re a scientist.
Temper, temper.
Terry Oldberg,
I explained to you that I reject your role as Phil’s mouthpiece and will await an answer from him.
I disagree with your position, have told you why several times in the past, and that I’m not inclined to pursue that discussion further. You can call that capitulation if you wish; I don’t control you. My opinion of your argument on this topic is that it’s sophistry which doesn’t hold up under further scrutiny.
Brandon Gates:
Your “sophistry” is what a philosopher would call “logic.” You’re attempting to reverse 2300 years of intellectual progress by turning logic on its head!
Yeah, well I’m not the one wandering talking about “proof” in a conversation about inductive and/or abductive reasoning: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/05/agreeing-to-disagree/#comment-1899907
I really like how the fact that I gave an answer you didn’t agree with constitutes a “failure” on my part to give an answer at all. That was a particularly nice touch. If that’s where we’re at after 2,300 years of intellectual progress, I fear for our species.
You failed to give an answer to the question of the identity of Arrhenius’s falsifiable hypothesis.
It’s testable, therefore falsifiable.
My patience is worn thin. This dialogue has gone on for many iterations in which you have not yet identified Arrhenius’s falsifiable hypothesis. If there is such a hypothesis, please identify it now. Otherwise, kindly signify your capitulation so we can avoid further fruitless discourse on this topic.
Terry,
Same answer it’s been all along:
If the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
You not agreeing that it’s falsifiable is not my failure to give an answer. Bad form to chase your own tail and say I’m the one leading you on it.
Brandon:
I’ve PROVED my assertion. If you don’t like the conclusion of this PROOF then the proper course for you is to try to refute it. If you find what you think is a bullet proof refutation try it out on this audience. We’ll give you a critical review.
The tack you are now on is the logically illegitimate one of applying the fallacy of proof by assertion: one asserts that the conclusion of his argument is true and ignores the contradictions. In doing so you are wasting our time. Rather than being an asset you are making your self a pain in the neck..
Terry Oldberg,
So you SAY.
According to YOUR definition of proper.
I maintain that there is no such thing as “bullet proof” when the subject under consideration is a vastly complex system which all but precludes deductive logic as a method for determining truth propositions about its multitude of physical parameters. We — humanity — use mainly use inductive and abductive reasoning to study such phenomena. I hold that the concept of a logical axiomatic proof does not apply when the underlying reasoning used to form and test hypotheses relies on inductive and/or abductive reasoning.
Irony. Your first words in this subthread: philincalifornia:
There is no falsifiable hypothesis/theory. In his response to you, Brandon Gates fails to cite one though implying that he is doing the opposite..
Yes, I know this behaviour well — I am weary of your habit of doing it.
I am not compelling anyone here to respond to me. I do not have that power.
Your opinion is noted, with the additional detail that the feeling is very much mutual. For example, this exchange above:
Brandon Gates
April 7, 2015 at 1:17 pm
I already know where you stand as we’ve discussed it several times before, without satisfactory resolution to definition of terms. My view of it is that, not unlike Phil, you stand on definitions and won’t budge from them even when I have pointed out where I think they fail. Which I find tedious and non-productive. So thanks, but no thanks.
Terry Oldberg
April 7, 2015 at 1:22 pm
It would be appropriate to read your non-response as a capitulation on the falsifiability issue.
Where did I “capitulate” Terry? I stated very clearly that I disagreed with your conclusion, why I think so, and why I am disinclined to take it up further.
By your own stated standard …
If you don’t like the conclusion of this PROOF then the proper course for you is to try to refute it.
… your strongest possible response to my stated disagreement would have been to … [drumroll] … post the proof you had already claimed exists. Yet you didn’t. You asserted capitulation on my part when the words I wrote are entirely inconsistent with the words that I wrote.
I look forward to your proof about what goes on in my own head.
I will also point out that your posting of your own proof is not at all contingent upon whether or not I have asked for it, or if I have expressed interest in reading and discussing it. Please do not hold me accountable for your own failure to provide substantive support for your own arguments and rebuttals. I consider such behaviour highly annoying and counter-productive, as very much evidenced by my frustrated and therefore intentionally ironic argument by assertion directed toward you:
You’re wrong.
Which, if you rewind tape, ought to find is a concise distillation of your leading argument:
philincalifornia:
There is no falsifiable hypothesis/theory. In his response to you, Brandon Gates fails to cite one though implying that he is doing the opposite..
Perhaps it is clearer to you now why I ended the cycle where you started it, and wish to withdraw from further discussion with you on this topic.
Logic stands in contradistinction to sophistry. I observe that you use the latter and not the former whenever this suits your purposes.
Errata: Yet you didn’t. You asserted capitulation on my part when the words I wrote are entirely inconsistent with the words that I wrote.
Yogi Berra would be proud.
Terry Oldberg,
Only when logic is applied to the substantive issue. What’s substantive here is subjective, and very much a matter of personal choice. I have made mine, and it is quite obviously at odds with yours. I call that an impasse. When I find myself in a situation I deem intractable, I choose to withdraw.
See again: I look forward to your proof of what goes on inside my head.
Capitulation it is then. Sold to the lowest bidder.
Brandon – you are so far away from knowing what you don’t know it’s a joke.
Go back to school. Work your way up to a Ph.D. program in Chemistry or something. You’ll still be a failure, but at least you’ll know why.
…. maybe
philincalfornia
Irony: Perhaps when Brandon’s done mentally masturbating on the other six threads, he can let us know.
You had it locked from the get-go.
You’re Doing it Wrong. When the auction is over, you no longer need to bid. Now about that payment; will it be cash, charge or check? I’m easy, but not cheap.
On the thread level, sorry Willis, although there’s probably a Symposium Series in here somewhere.
there’s no bridge, no ferry from clouded views to clear landscape as long as the shores of ‘clouded views’ mark the boundaries of ‘escapism country.’
Hans
johann wundersamer on April 8, 2015 at 1:47 am
– – – – – –
johann wundersamer,
That is poetic styled and profound remark.
John
Reblogged this on Finding Confluence and commented:
Stop calling me an “ass hat”… 🙂
Brandon Gates April 7, 2015 at 9:41 pm
Ah, I see the problem. Once again my writing wasn’t sufficiently clear.
I had not “conflated “falsifiable” with “falsified”.” I was not claiming that Arrhenius had been falsified at all.
Instead, I was asking a simple question—if Arrhenius’s hypothesis is indeed falsifiable, then what would it take to falsify it?
Me, I don’t think it’s easily falsified because it is too vague. If I say “The temperature as measured at the Santa Rosa ground station will exceed 73°F today”, that is falsifiable. But the statement “It will be hot in Santa Rosa today” is NOT falsifiable, because it is too vague. It could get up to 85°F and I could say “doesn’t seem hot to me, not like the heat we’d get when I was a boy” … you see the problem.
Now, recall that Arrhenius’s statement was:
I asked you what it would take to falsify Arrhenius’s statement. Simple question. Does 18 years of increasing carbonic acid with no increase in temperature falsify it? And if not, what would falsify it?
I thought that I had clarified my thoughts by pointing out what some other people thought would falsify it. Despite that, I note that you have not answered the question, which is why I’m clarifying it.
Regarding Phil’s contention that I’ve shown that Arrhenius is falsified, sorry, Phil, not so. I’m just pointing out that there is no agreement on what it would take to falsify Arrhenius, and that even those who set a falsifiability test now don’t live by the results of their own test … which is why it is not inherently falsifiable.
w.
PS—Brandon, could you cut back on the personal attacks? I don’t “dodge” questions, that’s just mud-slinging. I make an honest effort to answer all serious scientific questions. If I don’t, folks know enough to just ask again in a pleasant manner. Well, most folks know that.
Willis:
The rules for making claims falsifiable do not depend upon what these claims are. Thus, it is sufficient to state these rules once.
When claims made by a model are falsifiable, they reference a set of events. Each event has an outcome. In testing the model the observed values of the relative frequencies of the outcomes of observed events are compared to the predicted values of the associated probabilities. If there is not a match, the model is falsified by the evidence. Otherwise it is “validated.” For brevity, I’ve glossed over the problem of sampling error.
Beginning with Arrhenius and continuing up to the present day, global warming climatologists have failed to identify the events underlying their models. Consequently, the claims made by these models are not falsifiable. Another consequence from the absense of the events is for the models convey no information to a policy maker about the outcomes from his/her policy decisions. Thus, after the expenditure of several hundred billion dollars on research the climate remains uncontrollable.
The study of global warming climatology that began with Arrhenius has been an abject failure. That this is true is not apparent to enough people for needed changes to be forced in the design of the research. In a study that I conducted at the request of the chair of Earth Sciences at Georgia Tech, I traced the cause of this phenomenon to applications of the equivocation fallacy on the part of climatologists. My most recent peer-reviewed article on this topic is available at http://wmbriggs.com/post/7923/ .
Willis,
That wasn’t your original question to me. I quote:
So if that’s Arhennius’s falsifiable prediction, would it be falsified by e.g. 18 years of increasing “carbonic acid” with absolutely no concomitant increase in temperature?
I’m going to let Wikipedia speak for me. Very broadly that form of questioning falls into these buckets:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_question
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leading_question
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
To me, “simple” questions are open-ended, do not contain any presuppositions or implicit assertions, and do not contain any conditionals. Example: What is your definition of a falsifiable proposition?
Your immediately following question to the above is “better”: If your answer is no, eighteen years of no temperature increase wouldn’t falsify Arhennius’s falsifiable hypothesis, then perhaps you could enlighten us as to just what would falsify it.
My answer to the first question is, indeed, no. By my reading of Arrhenius (1896), he does not give an estimation of the time it would take to reach a new equilibrium temperature following a perturbation in CO2 concentration. Which brings us to …
Yes, I agree. However that raises the question: why then did you introduce the observed GAT trend over the past 18 years into this discussion?
One thing which has gotten lost in the shuffle is the final salient point of my initial response to philincalifornia:
So from my POV, it’s mostly about getting the fine details less wrong.
I cited ongoing research to constrain the value of ECS as one example of that.
Your words to me above: So according to all of those good folks, the Arrhenius hypothesis is already falsified. We did NOT see “rapid warming in the next 5 years” as forecast. We did not see warming resuming “in the next few years”.
I find it very difficult to read the statement in bold any other way than an attempt to falsify Arrhenius (1896).
Yes, that’s what you’re explicitly arguing now, which is great — I think that’s an important discussion. I chose the bolded words VERY specifically.
I’ll lead with some opinions: Given that there is no universally acceptable or applicable definition of falsifiability, arguments which seek to impose such a definition are counter-productive.
Yes, there is an implicit a priori in that previous statement, but I note that there is ample anecdotal evidence on this thread suggesting its veracity. All I need to falsify the proposition “All swans are black” is to observe the existence of one and only one white swan. The climate system is not so starkly binary, and I contend that it is folly to discuss it as if it is. /opinions
Has anyone ever seen a battle between a giant squid and a sperm whale ?
Brandon vs Willis must be the literary equivalent.
I certainly ain’t gonna get between those two heavyweights, just yet.
Call me Ishmael.
Call me Fishmeal …
w.
Excellent. Unfortunately, one Paul Kamen of Berkeley, CA has dibs: http://www.well.com/~pk/resume.html
Many who have sailed with me call me Ahab, but that’s been many years. Quixote is probably more fitting.
What’s the relevance?
Willis,
The astute reader will notice I still haven’t directly answered your question: what would falsify [Arrhenius (1896)]?
There are two reasons why I have not:
1) I want do some reading and thinking about it so as to compose reasonably comprehensive answer.
2) At present I’m more interested in the “meta” issues of the AGW debate — well, conflict I think is the better term — which I think is fitting given the topic of your OP. I reiterate my appreciation and thanks to you for writing it.
It will take some time for me to compose my response … something on the order of a workday.
Huh? Not one of those addresses Straw Man arguments and other false logic? And not one of them includes one side characterizing the other side in a false way? The latter is NOT the same thing as a Straw Man argument. It is when they just make stuff up about the opposing side – stuff that has nothing to do with any of their arguments or general positions.
That pyramid needs 2 more levels, Willis.
This is to note for the record that Brandon Gates continues to fail to produce Arrhenius’s falsifiable hypothesis for inspection. Though claiming its existence he fails to produce it.
This is, and has been, my answer to that request several times now:
If the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
Terry is free to contend that it is not falsifiable. He is not at liberty to suggest that I have not provided an answer to the request and be seen as truthful.
Brandon:
The sentence that you’ve rendered in bold font is an hypothesis. It is not, however, a falsifiable hypothesis.
If Arrhenius’s “temperature” is observable, it fluctuates rather than increasing monotonically with the CO2 concentration as Arrhenius hypothesizes that it does; in this case, his hypothesis is falsified by the evidence. If his “temperature” is the equilibrium temperature, it is not observable; thus, Arrhenius’s hypothesis is not falsifiable. Either Arrhenius’s hypothesis is falsified by the evidence or not falsifiable. In neither case is it falsifiable.
That’s a logical conclusion. Do you accept this conclusion as true or will you continue to pursue an illogical conclusion through application of one or more fallacious arguments?
Terry,
I will continue to recognize the utility of inference and inductive reasoning in the sciences, and not further attempt to decompose the planet Earth down to its component axioms. As much as I’d like science to be based solely on deductive reasoning, present human capabilities preclude us from doing it. I consider pragmatism a virtue, and hold that it is entirely rational to make considered choices between the normative I want and the positive I can get.
Brandon:
What is the logical basis for your claim that “As much as I’d like science to be based solely on deductive reasoning, present human capabilities preclude us from doing it,” your claim that “I consider pragmatism a virtue” or your claim that you “hold that it is entirely rational to make considered choices between the normative I want and the positive I can get.” There is no such basis. These claims are pretentious nonsense.
Terry Oldberg,
Well, that’s got to be split into parts. The clause of my statement prior to the comma is normative, making a logical defence difficult. I stand on my own will to decide what my values and desires are.
I take the latter part as so blindingly obvious as not to require much discussion. Considering the entire planet and its interactions with other bodies in the solar system, I would think it an absurd notion to conclude that we could study the whole system on the basis of deduction alone. To do so would require knowledge of every component interaction AND the ability to process and comprehend the data. Thinking in terms of atoms and fundamental forces alone, this might be logically feasible. Newtonian physics suggested a deterministic system was a possibility, yet Einstein himself was deeply bothered by the implications of quantum theory he himself helped pioneer.
That leaves us with inference by such things as deduction or abduction, which are NOT logically robust in the sense that deduction is. I get it that doesn’t sit well with some folks; I don’t always care for it either.
Nonsense may be logically demonstrable, but I defy you to write a proof defending the use of a qualitative adjective. That’s two you owe me now. The previous one is: I look forward to your proof of what goes on inside my own head.
In response to my “capitulation” as well as: I observe that you use the latter and not the former whenever this suits your purposes.
One wonders about the integrity of a commenter who demands a logical basis and/or proofs for statements of personal opinion, yet leaves multiple quid pro quo calls for same unanswered.
sonofab_____ – my comment to Konrad and dbstealy went into the void and never got put up on here. Dammit!
Testing 123… My comments are not being put up. WUWT, Anthony?
One was lost completely, and now it is working again.
Willis,
You ask: … if Arrhenius’s hypothesis is indeed falsifiable, then what would it take to falsify it?
The hypothesis as quoted by me comes from Arrhenius (1896): http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf
If the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
The question is difficult for me to answer for two reasons:
1) It presumes Arrhenius (1896) is falsifiable without explicit stipulation.
2) The phenomenon in question involves a massive and complex system within which the putative effects of CO2 are not the sole factor.
Given that you have reserved explicit opinion on falsifiability, but asked me what would falsify it, I conclude that falsifiability is not a point of contention between us. I would therefore be disappointed to see the issue raised between us in the future.
As I do not consider other readers bound to your statements, I think a discussion of falsifiability is in order. I am preparing a second note to address it.
The question now becomes, how can an investigator falsify any given hypothesis about a physical system? I submit the following:
1) Provide an alternative explanation which better explains the observed phenomenon.
2) Show that it is based on faulty premises such that conclusions drawn from them do not necessarily follow.
3) Demonstrate that it is internally inconsistent with itself.
4) Wait until any predictions based upon the hypothesis fail to materialize.
This is not an exhaustive list, however they are the ones I most commonly associate with this debate. Significantly, I have ranked them in order of strength according to my own system of values. Much like the pyramid in the head post, what I consider “best” is at the top. Implicit in that ranking is that the most difficult and potentially rewarding, method is at the top. What follows is a discussion of how I would attempt to falsify Arrhenius (1896) by each method, in reverse order.
4) Wait until any predictions based upon the hypothesis fail to materialize.
Difficult if not impossible based only on what I have thus far quoted. The reason being is that my quoted excerpts lack the necessary specifics to do so, namely the component of time. A more careful reading of the paper may reveal text which implies a prediction of the time component, but my own reading has not found one. At best, Arrhenius (1896) only provides estimates for an equilibrium surface temperature for a doubling of CO2 falling in the range 4.95 – 6.05 K/2xCO2 depending on latitude, with the tropics being least sensitive and the higher temperate and polar zones being the most.
3) Demonstrate that it is internally inconsistent with itself.
If such a discrepancy exists, I have not found it. It’s boilerplate “greenhouse” effect so far as I can tell, and explanations of modern theory on that point are legion. I leave it to others to challenge me on this method of falsification; however, I request that for purposes of this discussion that those challenges be limited to the text of the paper itself. I’m genuinely interested what other eyes and minds may find.
2) Show that it is based on premises such that conclusions drawn from them do not necessarily follow.
The easiest, most obvious rebuttal here is that the entire paper relies on a very limited set of observations relative to modern times, taken with instruments now well out of the state of the art. The next attack would be to note that one single paper then or now cannot possibly address the multitude of confounding factors which all but the most naive investigator would be able to reasonably suppose without great effort, and therefore that making strong conclusions on the basis of this study alone is dubious at best and pure folly at worst.
That’s not falsification, it’s reserving judgement pending further study. It bears mention, however, that this paper was roundly dismissed by the at-large scientific community when it was published.
1) Provide an alternative explanation which better explains the observed phenomenon.
The strongest and best for last. Near the end of the paper we find the following text:
As the question of the probability of quantitative variation of the carbonic acid in the atmosphere is in the most decided manner answered by Prof. Hogbom, there remains only one other point to which I wish to draw attention in a few words, namely: Has no one hitherto proposed any acceptable explanation for the occurrence of genial and glacial periods? Fortunately, during the progress of the foregoing calculations, a memoir was published by the distinguished Italian meteorologist L. De Marchi which relieves me from answering the last question. He examined in detail the different theories hitherto proposed — astronomical, physical, or geographical, and of these I here give a short resume. These theories assert that the occurrence of genial or glacial epochs should depend on one or other change in the following circumstances:
(1) The temperature of the earth’s place in space.
(2) The sun’s radiation to the earth (solar constant).
(3) The obliquity of the earth’s axis to the ecliptic.
(4) The position of the poles on the earth’s surface.
(5) The form of the earth’s orbit, especially its eccentricity (Croll).
(6) The shape and extension of continents and oceans.
(7) The covering of the earth’s surface (vegetation).
(8) The direction of the oceanic and aerial currents.
(9) The position of the equinoxes.
De Marchi arrives at the conclusion that all these hypotheses must be rejected, however he is of the opinion that a change in the transparency of the atmosphere would possibly give the desired effect. According to his calculations, “a lowering of this transparency would effect a lowering of the temperature of the whole earth, slight in the equatorial regions, and increasing with the latitude into the 70th parallel, nearer the poles again a little less. Further, this lowering would, in non-tropical regions, be less on the continents than on the ocean and would diminish the annual variations of the temperature. This diminution of the air’s transparency ought chiefly to be attributed to a greater quantity of aqueous vapour in the air, which would cause not only a direct cooling but also copious precipitation of water and snow on the continents. The origin of this greater quantity of water-vapour is not easy to explain.”
The numbered points are the main attraction here, I included the surrounding narrative for context.
I believe that (1) is essentially a statement of the now discarded (falsified?) luminiferous aether theory.
It’s (2), stupid. Well yes, clearly that cannot be discounted.
(3), (5) and (9) should jump out at anyone familiar with Milankovitch theory.
(4) is still speculated about in some quarters, but not by anyone I consider serious.
(6) is much discussed in present-day literature.
So is (7), though associated with that I would have included ice sheet and snow cover albedo feedback.
(8) Is presently all the rage, it seems to explain everything to almost everyone.
There are things missing, but it’s a fairly comprehensive list. While De Marchi concluded that they must be rejected I first must reiterate what he and Arrhenius were mainly attempting to do: explain the ice-age cycles.
On that basis, I think pretty much everyone would consider Arrhenius (1896) as a whole falsified. However this statement, again …
If the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
… not so much. Certainly not me. As you have already pointed out, it’s broad and vague, therefore all but impossible to falsify. But I think not completely impossible. My answer to your question is:
That isn’t what has been observed. Now we enter that zone where modern-day theory and observation come into topicality, and extremely contentious dispute. Basically, to shake my own beliefs on the matter would require an alternative mechanism by some combination of the above listed parameters and/or some as yet unknown force(s) — which combination provides a better correlation to observation than these formulae describe:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/c/2/a/c2a0e92291f118a8258a19b8fa58bb07.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/2/c/f/2cfca9ed59cb49f7b68570481ee87f53.png
As well, I would look for an AOGCM-like suite of models which outperform the present state of the art CMIP5 ensemble. It’s a tall order, but one I would very much like to see filled — it would be seriously inaccurate to say that I want CO2-driven AGW to be true.
Brandon Gates:
Were you to play by the rules you would have to address the proof already presented by me that “Arrhenius’s falsifiable hypothesis” is not falsifiable before proceeding. If you have no intention of playing by the rules please exit this blog FOREVER.
Terry,
Falsifiability is not an apparent point of contention between Willis and myself. I consider myself within “the rules” on that point of order. I discuss that with him in the beginning of my post; you may wish to review that section again for some other salient details.
Brandon, do you really believe that real scientists reading this can’t see you for the evasive, passive aggressive, supercilious bullsh!tter that you are.
Terry was not speaking about your response to Willis. Terry was addressing your non-response to Terry.
… and unless I missed it while skimming through your mega-hand-waving, you still haven’t provided a modern day falsifiable hypothesis for any of CAGW, CACC, AGW, ACC dangerous AGW, dangerous ACC. Take your pick.
philincalifornia,
First, you need to define what constitutes a “real” scientist.
Well, here’s what he wrote:
Were you to play by the rules you would have to address the proof already presented by me that “Arrhenius’s falsifiable hypothesis” is not falsifiable before proceeding. If you have no intention of playing by the rules please exit this blog FOREVER.
1) It was a reply to a post I wrote to Willis, not Terry.
2) My participation here is at the pleasure of Mr. Watts according to his rules, or his delegates authorized to enforce them, not Terry.
You still haven’t answered these two questions:
1) How do you define falsifiability in this context?
2) How is it specifically that Arrhenius (1896) does not meet that definition?
I can’t give you what you’re asking for unless I have some good idea of what it is you want. I’m not a mind-reader, so … I’d suggest you try communicating using a different method.
Brandon Gates:
That an hypothesis is “falsifiable” implies that it can be proved false. “Arrhenius’s falsifiable hypothesis” is not falsifiable because it cannot be proved false. I’ve published a proof of this contention in this blog. You have repeatedly evaded the same issue.
Terry Oldberg,
I agree with your argument. Also, I note that Arrhenius changed his original guesstimate of around 6º/doubling, to only about 1.6º in his 1906 paper, IIRC. Therefore, his original paper was ipso facto falsified.
dbstealey,
We’ll just see about that in a bit.
Factually incorrect:
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Arrhenius%201906,%20final.pdf
For this disclosure, one could calculate that the corresponding secondary temperature change, on a 50% fluctuation of CO2 in the air, is approximately 1.8 degrees C, such that the total temperature change induced by a decrease in CO2 in the air by 50% is 3.9 degrees (rounded to 4 degrees C).
Have we not danced this dance before? Ah yes: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/07/three-questions-for-denuding-complexity-a-standpoint-on-science-and-climate-change/#comment-1878997
Hmm. Well here’s what Terry wrote, with which you say you agree:
That an hypothesis is “falsifiable” implies that it can be proved false. “Arrhenius’s falsifiable hypothesis” is not falsifiable because it cannot be proved false. I’ve published a proof of this contention in this blog.
I’m not seeing how it’s possible to falsify something which has been declared not falsifiable. Regardless, the way I’d put it is that Arrhenius (1906) gave a revised estimate from Arrhenius (1896), which is more or less what you wrote above. Only thing you got objectively wrong, again, was the revised 1906 estimate of 3.9 degrees C.
Terry,
No, I flat out told you that I didn’t agree with your conclusion and no longer wished to engage you in conversation about it. Here again, you’re imputing ulterior motive; I would like to see a logical proof from you on what goes on inside my own head. I have asked you for THAT proof several times. I have yet to see one.
Ron House April 9, 2015 at 7:08 pm
Terry
..
You argue, “Either Arrhenius’s hypothesis is falsified by the evidence or not falsifiable. In neither case is it falsifiable. ”
However if the evidence falsifies the hypothesis, then obviously the hypothesis IS falsifiable, hence your conclusion is incorrect.
It’s a dead parrot Ron. It’s not going to be brought back to life so it can be made more dead.
But, speaking of which, Friday came early, and I just had a beer or two with some scientist friends a couple of hours ago at a place where sometimes a Swedish scientist joins us, and I got to thinking damn, I really need to retract that comment I made up above about the fact that Arrhenius wasn’t thinking straight re. the Beer-Lambert Law that had been discovered 5 decades earlier. This:
If the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
…. has so clearly been translated badly from the original Swedish. Carbonic acid should have been a big clue. Can anyone point me to the original Swedish version, and I’ll have my colleague translate it properly. Geometric and arithmetic imply some kind of linearity and, in quick and dirty experiments a tad of this and a tad of that is OK but, “nearly in arithmetic progression” is almost certainly a bad translation.
I’ll work on it.
Brandon Gates:
In this thread, falsifiability has been continuously at issue in the period since philincalifornia asked “Where is there a falsifiable hypothesis/theory of anthropogenic global warming…” On April 6 at 12:08 am you responded to Phil that “AGW is pretty much where it has been since 1896 in terms of falsifiability.” On April 6 at 3:49 pm Phil accused you of failing to present “a falsifiable hypothesis/theory of anthropogenic global warming, or anthropogenic climate change, as it stands in April, 2015.″ On April 6 at 7:15 pm you responded to Phil that “…you asked for a falsifiable hypothesis/theory. Arrhenius (1896) was my answer.” In the same post, you asked Phil to define “falsifiability.” On April 6 at 8:44 pm, Phil asked you to “Please cut and paste Arrhenius’ falsifiable hypothesis/theory (from Arrhenius 1896)…” On April 6 at 9:39 pm I posted the claim that “There is no falsifiable hypothesis/theory.”
On April 7 at 12:59 pm you posted a pair of equations called “simplified expressions” and asserted that the only argument is about the values of the coefficients of these equations. You stated that Phil continued to claim you had not produced a falsifiable theory/hypothesis and asked Phil to state what he meant by “falsifiable.” On April 7 at 1:22 pm I posted the claim that your non-responsiveness on the identity of the falsifiable hypothesis should be taken as a sign of your capitulation.
On April 7 at 5:46 pm, Willis Eschenbach asked whether “Arhennius’s falsifiable prediction” would be falsified by “18 years of increasing ‘carbonic acid’ with absolutely no concomitant increase in temperature”.
On April 7 at 12:59 pm you stated that “Arrhenius (1896) meets my definition of falsifiability because it makes testable claims.” In the same post you stated that Arrhenius’s “central thesis” was: “If the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.”
On April 7 at 7:28 pm I posted a refutation of Arrhenius’s “central thesis.” On April 7 at 7:43 pm you responded with a restatement of my argment that misrepresented one of its features. On April 7 at 8:28 pm I responded to you with a restatement of my argument. On April 8 at 12:20 am you responded that “I declare by similar fiat that you’re wrong.” This was an application of the fallacy of proof by assertion. On April 8 at 7:19 am I responded that your conclusion was based upon the fallacy of mislabelling a fact as a fiat.
On April 7 at 8:14 pm, Phil asked where there was “a falsifiable hypothesis/theory of anthropogenic global warming, or anthropogenic climate change, as it stands in April, 2015?” On April 7 at 8:25 pm you responded to Phil that “If you don’t agree that Arrhenius provides a testable, and therefore falsifiable, hypothesis, it is incumbent on you to explain why you don’t think so” but to do this is what I had just accomplished. You were applying the fallacy of proof by assertion once again.
On April 7 at 8:30 I called on you to capitulate. On April 8 at 2:33 pm you asserted that “your strongest possible response to my stated disagreement would have been to … [drumroll] … post the proof you had already claimed exists. Yet you didn’t.” Actually I had posted this proof twice.
This is where the matter stands. You have reached a conclusion that differs from mine by means that are logically and ethically illegitimate.
Terry,
I’m sorry, could you repeat that again? You’re not seriously suggesting that you have independently verifiable, testable evidence of every cognitive process my brain has engaged in since my birth?
Are you?
Ron House,
This thread has sprawled a bit. Here is how it all began, philincalifornia asking me an unsolicited question before I had posted a single comment in the thread:
——————
philincalifornia
April 5, 2015 at 11:26 pm
That’s not the only thing missing. Has anyone noticed a central point recently? Where is there a falsifiable hypothesis/theory of anthropogenic global warming, or anthropogenic climate change, as it stands in April, 2015?
Perhaps when Brandon’s done mentally masturbating on the other six threads, he can let us know.
Joking aside, is there one ? … does the AGU have one, or the other posters on here who, despite the fact that they should know better, still proclaim with convoluted fancy language that it’s simple physics?
——————
Brandon Gates
April 6, 2015 at 12:08 am
philincalifornia,
Is it really six threads? Yeesh, I think you’re correct.
Well let’s see, AGW is pretty much where it has been since 1896 in terms of falsifiability. The details have been fleshed out quite a bit. If you’ll pardon the pun, ECS is a hot topic this week …
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/04/03/ecs-2k-again/
… as it pretty much always has been since FAR went to press. So from my POV, it’s mostly about getting the fine details less wrong. From your perspective I imagine it looks like something akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
——————
philincalifornia
April 6, 2015 at 3:49 pm
Brandon:
From your perspective I imagine it looks like something akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic
When you can show (as you couldn’t in our previous discussion) hard scientific evidence for any global climate parameter being caused by CO2 going from 280ppm to 400ppm CO2, you still won’t have standing to use Titanic analogies.
From my perspective, it looks like people who can’t get productive jobs digging ditches and filling them in, with the filling in part beginning to get underway.
…. and your failure to present “a falsifiable hypothesis/theory of anthropogenic global warming, or anthropogenic climate change, as it stands in April, 2015″, is noted.
——————
Is it just me, or did the conditions of the request change?t
Your proof is of course dead nuts on. I’m just having a slightly different discussion with them, that’s all. Carry on good sir, carry on.
Ron House:
If A is the proposition that Arrhenius’s hypothesis is falsifiable and NOT A is the proposition that it is not, A is false and NOT A is true or else A is true and NOT A is false. Thus A OR ( NOT A ) is true while A AND ( NOT A ) is false. We agree on these propositions. Thus neither of us is guilty of a violation of one or more principles of symbolic logic.
You attribute to me the claim that A OR ( NOT A ) implies A AND ( NOT A ). This claim is false but is not made by me.
How you reached the false conclusion that I made this claim I do not know. Please explain.
Brandon Gates April 9, 2015 at 1:54 am
Thanks, Brandon. You say my question is hard to answer because it assumes the Arrhenius hypothesis may be falsifiable … so what’s the other option? If we assume that the Arrhenius hypothesis is NOT falsifiable then we’re assuming what we’re trying to determine—whether Arrhenius’s hypothesis is falsifiable.
Regards,
w.
Willis,
I wrote “presume”, as in to take for granted, or as a given. Assume is to believe without evidence or proof.
I think the best option is to not ask for demonstration of a thing until it has been defined and mutually agreed upon what that thing is. That’s my complaint about your question: if Arrhenius’s hypothesis is indeed falsifiable, then what would it take to falsify it? I read that as an implicit presumption of falsifiability. It’s the implicit part I don’t like: it hasn’t been made clear that we agree on that point.
Doesn’t make sense to me to talk about whether Arrhenius (1896) has been falsified or not until there is rough agreement that it makes falsifiable propositions.
I don’t consider that falsifiability is concrete in the philosophical sense; it’s not an object with real properties. It’s an abstract concept that humans have defined, in various ways, not always the same for every circumstance, and … quite evidently … not universally agreed upon.
So, here’s a short definition for physical sciences: a falsifiable hypothesis is testable, meaning that
1) there’s a logical counterexample to the phenomenon in question
2) it is reasonably hopeful that counterexamples will be observed should they occur
An investigator often doesn’t know whether those conditions are true beforehand. You bet there are arguments about this … some of the kit required to do various sciences is expensive.
Brandon Gates:
Willis’s question of “if Arrhenius’s hypothesis is indeed falsifiable, then what would it take to falsify it” is not an implicit presumption of falsifiability, contrary to your claim. In philosophical terms, the falsifiability of Arrhenius’s hypothesis is a premise to an argument. In the classical logic a premise may be true or false. Thus, the premise of the falsifiability of Arrhenius’s hypothesis may be true or false. Therefore this premise may be false.
You are embarrassing yourself by your lack of command of elementary logical principles and wasting the time of the rest of us by burdening us with inane arguments. Why don’t you do us a favor by retiring temporarily from this blog while you learn the elements of logic?
Brandon, no one asked you to spend hours on your wank-fest of pseudo-scientific gibberish. You may think it was a smokescreen to cover the fact that you have questions outstanding that your cognitive dissonance will not allow you to answer, but it was certainly an unsuccessful attempt on this site.
This isn’t so unusual with you scientist wannabes, but the fact that you find the not insignificant amount of time to also construct phony verbiage to the effect that it’s your protagonists who are to blame for everything is, quite frankly, f-kin creepy.
Are you this creepy in real life?
(Suggested Brandon answer – “Define creepy”).
I think Terry and I break the world record for the most disparate way of saying the same thing !!!
Terry Oldberg,
Gates has a tactic: he will try to wear you down with endless nitpicking and verbiage. But I don’t think he knows you are a published author and an expert in logic, and that you’ve given presentations on the subject to conventions.
Gates is out of his depth here.
Thanks for the support! The last time that I did a Google search on the topic of “the principles of reasoning,” the second ranking citation ( http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/15/the-principles-of-reasoning-part-iii-logic-and-climatology/ ) out of more than 325,000 was to a peer-reviewed article written by me on the topic of “logic and climatology.” I wrote this article and conducted the preceding study at the request of the chair of earth sciences at Georgia Tech University, Judith Curry. Dr. Curry, a climatologist, acted as referee and editor in the publication of this article.
In the study, I discovered that global warming climatology was plagued by an application of the equivocation fallacy having the effect of obscuring the fact that global warming climatology was presently a pseudoscience rather than a science. A result from application of this fallacy was for non-falsifiable claims of global warming models to appear to be falsifiable. Subsequently, I published a second peer-reviewed article on a similar topic ( http://wmbriggs.com/post/7923/ ). The referee and editor for the latter article was William M. Briggs. Briggs held a master’s degree in meteorology and a PhD degree in statistics. He taught statistics at Cornell University. Vincent Gray, a physical chemist whose PhD was from the University of Cambridge preceded me in this research. Gray was a long time “expert reviewer” for the IPCC whose warnings to IPCC management about the pseudoscientific nature of global warming research fell on deaf ears.
I am an engineer by training with a long background in the design and management of scientific studies. In the design of a study it is of paramount importance to avoid the numerous pitfalls by which an attempt at scientific research can fail from emulation of practices that look scientific but are not. Over time, I learned how to avoid these pitfalls in my own works and to spot them in the works of colleagues. Spotting them inflicted pain upon me my family. Not spotting them brought rewards to many of my colleagues.
Terry,
Am I. Well now you owe me another proof: please explain to the class how it is I am compelling you to waste your time?
As I explained to philincalifornia earlier today, my activities here are at the pleasure of Mr. Watts according to his house rules, or those he’s delegated to enforce them on his behalf. Not yours.
Why are you still engaging with me after I told you that I had no interest in discussing the topic of AGW falsfiability with you further?
philincalifornia,
Well let’s seeeee, the first time my name showed up in this thread was … where is it … ah: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/05/agreeing-to-disagree/#comment-1898509
philincalifornia
April 5, 2015 at 11:26 pm
That’s not the only thing missing. Has anyone noticed a central point recently? Where is there a falsifiable hypothesis/theory of anthropogenic global warming, or anthropogenic climate change, as it stands in April, 2015?
Perhaps when Brandon’s done mentally masturbating on the other six threads, he can let us know.
Joking aside, is there one ? … does the AGU have one, or the other posters on here who, despite the fact that they should know better, still proclaim with convoluted fancy language that it’s simple physics?
Let me get this straight:
1) You asked me an unsolicited question.
2) I answered.
3) A conversation happened.
4) You say nobody asked me spend time talking to you.
5) Therefore: I’m suffering from cognitive dissonance.
Hmmm.
Oh hey, by the way. You’re an expert the difference between science and pseudo-scientific gibberish, right? I’ve been trying to figure out the answers to these two questions. Maybe you can help:
1) How do you define falsifiability in this context?
2) How is it specifically that Arrhenius (1896) does not meet that definition?
Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
Brandon, I fear I’m not following this discussion. As I understand it, it went like this:
1. You claimed that the Arrhenius hypothesis was falsifiable.
2. I said fine, and if that’s so, what would it take to falsify it?
3. You said the problem was complex and you’d need a day or so to think about it … but after thinking about it, all you delivered were various thoughts and homilies on theoretical falsifiability. Unless I didn’t see it, you haven’t said what it would take to falsify Arrhenius … what am I missing here?
Now, foolish me, I assumed that since you were so danged sure that Arrhenius’s claim was falsifiable, you’d be just as sure about what would and would not falsify it … but clearly I was wrong.
So … why were you so sure Arrhenius’s hypothesis is falsifiable when it appears that you can’t answer the simplest question, which is, what would falsify his hypothesis?
w.
Willis,
A condensed review then. What would falsify this statement? If the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
Short answer, quoted from my previous: If temperatures had declined since 1896 in line with Milankovitch-predicted insolation OR had plummeted due to the “CO2 cooling” proposition I see mentioned on and off again, THEN I believe a strong case could be made that the 120 year interval would be sufficient to cast Arrhenius’ hypothesis into very serious doubt, if not outright falsification.
An 18 year pause: NO. Reason being Arrhenius (1896) lacks sufficient discussion of the time it takes the system to reach equilibrium temperature after a CO2 perturbation.
I consider the overall thesis of Arrhenius (1896) falsified because he was mainly attempting to explain ice age cycles.
You assumed wrong, and proceeded to ask irrelevant questions based on that unestablished premise, which I think is both foolish and dishonest.
I am NOT sure, but I have indeed answered the question to the best of my knowledge. Twice now. Your failure to follow is not my failure to answer. On that note, for the record, a “simple question” about a COMPLEX system may not have a simple answer and will in all likelihood be difficult for a layperson such as myself to explain clearly.
Is that so terribly difficult to understand?
Why are you still engaging with me after I told you that I had no interest in discussing the topic of AGW falsfiability with you further?
You might actually learn something you know.
I think I’ll have a go at a falsifiable hypothesis tomorrow. Terry and Willis might/will crap all over it, but I’m not scared of learning something.
philincalifornia,
I’ve had several of these discussions with Terry before. Here, and on William Briggs’ blog. I have learned from him, and I don’t mean that in a snarky way. Ultimately I just don’t agree with his conclusions, something which I personally don’t see as a problem. People have different approaches to the same problem, and I don’t necessarily consider that a bad thing. What’s more important to me in science is that whatever methods used are clearly communicated so that others’ understand what has been done and how. Not that standard protocols are not a good thing, but part of advancing scientific knowledge is advancing the methods of how science is done.
I hope you do have a good conversation with Terry and Willis tomorrow. I do find it easier to learn from others I trust than from those I don’t. But I make it a point to talk to people who don’t agree with me. Best way I know to have my own assumptions challenged … and it’s very much my way cross-checking what I’ve talked about or read from more trusted sources.
The approach that I have to addressing issues of fact and with which you differ from me is logic. Logic is best regarded as a scientific theory with a great deal of empirical evidence and no contradictory evidence. In this sense of the word, my approach is rational and yours is irrational.
Yeah, I’ll give it a go, but …
… I was just thinking in the bar earlier, actual practicing scientists just don’t talk to each other the way you do on here. You really should get enrolled in, and complete a science program if you want to experience the joy of doing actual science (and experience and learn from the exact opposite when your well thought-out experiment f**ks up big time).
Terry,
I believe you’ve missed a few steps. Let’s start with: prove that I exist. That one is easy for me to do for myself: Cogito ergo sum
I stipulate that I have no proof of your existence, and will not be able to provide one.
I didn’t parse that. It looks like you’re saying that logic is the end result of the development of a scientific theory.
“Best regarded” is normative, good luck proving that one.
No contradictory evidence???? You can’t possibly meant to have said that. I think you meant to write something along the lines of: The best regarded scientific theories are those which are logically consistent, are based on a great deal of empirical evidence and have little contradictory evidence standing against them.
I kind of doubt it though.
Once you’ve written your proof of my existence, I’d like to know to how it is you’re able to make that determination. Could get sticky; I see some implicit assumptions which may be problematic:
1) That “rational” and “irrational” are universal properties, can be objectively determined and independently verified.
2) That our respective approaches are always one thing and never the other.
In other words: I am asking you to demonstrate that your hypothesis about the difference between you and me is falsifiable.
Brandon:
I’m not buying into your attempt at constructing a strawman argument. Do you know of evidence refuting logic. If so, let us see it. If not, back off on your attack on logic.
Terry,
No. The question makes no sense to me for one thing. I don’t consider that logic is a tangible, concrete, physical, real object. So I very much do not understand how there can be empirical evidence either for or against it.
Back to your previous statement: The approach that I have to addressing issues of fact and with which you differ from me is logic.
First prove that I exist. If you don’t understand why I’m asking, then ask me for clarification. Asserting that I’m building a strawman without providing further support is a fallacious argument, is it not? Logical people don’t do that according to you.
philincalifornia,
That doesn’t give me much to go on. I’ve engaged in several different styles of discourse on this thread, and I’ll be damned if I don’t know Real Scientists (TM) who talk to each other, me, their spouses, children, etc. from arrogant professorial, to sarcastic, to angrily dressing someone down littered with obscenities. Or just normal conversational. They’re human beings just like I am.
You don’t know me, Phil. You know practically nothing about who I really am or what my life experiences are. It is kind of amusing watching you flop about trying to figure it out.
Why it doesn’t occur to you to simply ask, politely, is completely beyond me. That’s what I do when I’m interested in someone’s background.
Why that’s relevant AT ALL in this discussion is COMPLETELY beyond me. I could be 10 different people writing this from a sweatshop in China for all you know. The words on the screen you’re reading are the best thing you’ve got to work from. Try dealing with them instead of trying to “prove” to me that I’m something I know I ain’t:
Am I getting through yet?
Um, well no. I don’t want to do that.
So you can’t write a modern day falsifiable theory of pretty much anything associated with your [snip] theory
philincalifornia 2
Brandon Gates ZERO
Well done
The Black Knight always wins!
Indeed Brandon, make sure you come back and bite my legs off.
I’m not done yet either. I’m done with you on this thread you deceitful individual (as everyone can see). I might continue the falsifiable hypothesis part and the translation from the Swedish part, neither of which you are capable of making any contribution to, although I will be more than happy to insult you further in public should you make your usual deceitful attempt.
philincalifornia,
There is no Swedish part I’m aware of unless there’s an unpublished manuscript. Google Hans Erren, who sometimes appears here — he has a bit of a collection of these sort of ephemera.
Arrhenius (1896) was published by a London-based journal, in the Queen’s English. The 1906 paper was published in German. Those contributions have already been made, contrary to your statement that I cannot make a contribution. I’ll choose to see this discrepancy as a simple misunderstanding, which is of course, a pleasant conceit on my part — don’t let anyone know I said so!
It does, however, absolve me the duty of proving that you have intentionally misrepresented my previous post on the topic translating Swedish to Engrish since I can’t read your mind. Such a proof would be impossible. I generally attempt, but often fail, to not burden myself with such difficult proofs, however there is some emotional utility for giving the other guy a piece of my mind and calling him an asshat. Which then makes me the asshat in the mind of asshats everwhere, and suddenly that’s all anyone cares to talk about — the interesting and relevant parts of the discussion be damned.
Speaking of translations and terminiology, carbonic acid was an accepted term for carbon dioxide gas when both papers were written — IOW an archaic term. I’m not sure CO2 was ALWAYS called carbonic acid, but if so, it would be an anachronistic mistranslation of any extant Swedish manuscript of either paper to use carbon dioxide instead of carbonic acid. That is, if one were disposed to pedantry and had a penchant for trivial objections by way of obfuscating and misdirecting away from more substantive and salient points of contention.
Surely we’re all open-minded truth-seekers here, and would not ever do such things. No, of course we wouldn’t.
Geometric and arithmetic are both appropriately used to indicate a discrete progression of values, or in other words, a series of individual points. The equivalent terms for a continuous function are exponential and linear. As I have stated previously:
If the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
This is still in conceptual use today by what the IPCC calls “simplified expressions”:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/c/2/a/c2a0e92291f118a8258a19b8fa58bb07.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/2/c/f/2cfca9ed59cb49f7b68570481ee87f53.png
Arrhenius’ statement refers to relationship between the tabulated discrete values in the paper. The expressions above are the continuous functions derived from his, and later works. There’s no conflict conceptual conflict here, only a difference in technical terms which have specific meanings not relevant to the underlying physical mechanism proposed.
At issue between you and me is whether the “Arrhenius hypothesis” as stated just above is falsifiable. I have asked you for your definition of that term, and have not as yet received one. All the same you’re declaring victory since I cannot give you any falsifiable theory of AGW, past or present.
Curious behaviour to say the least. One wonders how someone can ask for a thing he is not able to himself describe, then allege that some other party has failed to deliver what he has been asked. I will say that you run victory laps, sans legs, amazingly well.
Now if you’ll pardon me, I’m going to go soak my head in some Epsom salts before attempting the five other impossible things on my plate for breakfast.
Brandon Gates April 10, 2015 at 11:18 am
So I made an assumption that you would not claim something was falsifiable without knowing how it could be falsified … seems like a reasonable assumption to me. And in response, you are resorting to name-calling. Way to go. You’ve proven that you can descend the pyramid of discussion all the way to the bottom. Well done!
However, I fear this is where I get off the merry-go-round. You’ve proven that you are willing to sink to any level, including accusations of dishonesty. Sorry, Brandon, but you’ll have to continue the discussion with others. You and I are done. I may be a fool, but I’m a rigorously honest fool …
w.
Willis,
I maintain that a scrupulously honest fool will listen to reason, and thereby become not foolish. Firstly note that I did not call YOU a fool, nor dishonest. I describe a particular action as foolish and dishonest. Harsh, yes, but honest on my part — it is how I see things. Instead of appealing to tone, higher level debate would be counter-attacking my argument in return.
Next. The point at which you entered the conversation with me was in the middle of an unsettled debate about the falsifiability of a particular statement in Arrhenius (1896). You asked me whether the 18 year pause in surface temperatures falsified that statement. I cannot answer that question when the falsifiability of same is under dispute. IF the statement is NOT falsifiable, NOTHING can falsify it. Cart before horse = not work.
What, I’m just supposed to stay mum when I perceive chicanery? I consider it my duty to call out such things as I see them, and my duty to justify them by appealing to evidence.
That is apparently one of Anthony’s main motivations for maintaining this very forum. I do not agree with much of what is posted here most of the time, but I would never think to assault the principle by which, he as a concerned citizen, speaks out against what he believes to be wrong. I consider this a central, essential component of a republican democratic society.
False allegations of dishonesty are abhorrent. Unsubstantiated claims of dishonesty less so, but still suspect. They may be redeemable, however. So: What’s your evidence that I am lying?
And for the love of all that is logical, why is it a fatal flaw on my part to sink to the level of “name calling” but perfectly ok for you to make that your parting shot against me?
Blatant appeal to flattery: I think that on the whole you are not a fool or a liar. I enjoy your posts the best, always have. They’re usually interesting, thought provoking and teaching. I have learned much from them.
When I disagree, I do so harshly — and here I MUST admit or be branded a deserving liar — not always honestly or fairly. Many have called for me to raise my game, including you, and I am attempting to heed that call. I will not be able to change overnight, I have passions on this issue which quite evidently to all, including myself, often get the better of me.
For my own multitude of sins, I beg forgiveness of all, not expecting to receive it. Tomorrow is another day, and I will do my utmost to consider your slate clean in my eyes.
Brandon, I am an honest man. It appears you have little familiarity with the breed, so here’s a protip. Most honest men I’ve known do not respond well to being accused of acting dishonestly, as you have done when you say of me:
Sorry, but our conversation is over. You successfully made your way down to the lowest level, that of the bottom-feeders making underhanded, unsubstantiated attacks on my honesty. I regret to say that’s too much for me. What’s the point? I mean, you obviously are willing to accuse me of dishonesty without a scrap of evidence … why would anyone want to discuss science with a person like you who is willing to do that?
Sadly,
w.
Willis,
Ok, you’ve asked me to stop with the “name calling” as you put it. What is it you call what you just did there?
What kind of proof is that? Why should someone who is dishonest not respond well to to allegations of being dishonest?
Those are indeed my words. I meant them when I said them. They represent my current thoughts on the matter as well.
So you said last post: However, I fear this is where I get off the merry-go-round … You and I are done.
Here you are talking to me again. Words != Action.
Hmm.
Point of order: is “bottom-feeder” above or below “asshat” on the chart?
Irony. Never mind.
In a comment from philincalifornia to me: Willis showed that that one has been falsified, so you need a new one.
A reply from you to Phil: Regarding Phil’s contention that I’ve shown that Arrhenius is falsified, sorry, Phil, not so.
Except earlier you wrote to me: So according to all of those good folks, the Arrhenius hypothesis is already falsified.
Which is really odd since none of your citations mentioned Arrhenius at all. And it very much contradicts what you wrote Phil. Could be you simply forgot, yes?
I specifically challenged you on that statement the very next post: I find it very difficult to read the statement in bold any other way than an attempt to falsify Arrhenius (1896).
You never replied to that challenge. So I’m sorry, Willis, but it doesn’t look to me like you’re playing straight. You came into the middle of a discussion you weren’t part of, threw a bunch of loosely related — if not wholly unrelated — stuff against the wall and then contradicted yourself when asked about it. Not bombproof evidence, but a little more than just a shred by my reading. I feel very much within my rights to hold you to account for it.
This is what you and other authors do here EVERY DAY: hold the climate science community to account for how you feel they’re being dishonest. From this very thread, here are your own words: We did NOT see “rapid warming in the next 5 years” as forecast. We did not see warming resuming “in the next few years”. Now, if the scientists in question who made those statements were forthright, they’d admit that the pause has exceeded the generous limits they set, and that their hypothesis is falsified according to their own criteria … dream on.
You’re not asking whether they’ve been dishonest. You’re saying they have been, and very much implying that they will continue (“dream on”). No discussion at all from you. Not a whiff of a hint that you may be wrong.
You ask a good question. You need a lot more than just a shred of evidence to demonstrate fraud or scientific misconduct. Somehow, by cutting and pasting a few words from some stuff you’ve looked at, you’re nailing scientists to the wall.
You might want to lay off the high-and mighty “how dare you” rhetoric when your own words are called into question. Or, you could soften your words and raise your own level of debate instead of just lecturing people like me about it.
Brandon, it appears you missed my previous answer, viz:
Willis,
I have word-searched this thread for those exact words, and do not find them. Your previous replies to me along these lines began with:
Sorry, Brandon, but you’ll have to continue the discussion with others. You and I are done.
Which is a declaration, not a request. Then:
Sorry, but our conversation is over. You successfully made your way down to the lowest level, that of the bottom-feeders making underhanded, unsubstantiated attacks on my honesty. I regret to say that’s too much for me. What’s the point? I mean, you obviously are willing to accuse me of dishonesty without a scrap of evidence … why would anyone want to discuss science with a person like you who is willing to do that?
Which again is a declaration, not a request — accompanied by a charge against me to which I feel I am within my rights to respond: Namely that me holding your evidently discrepant statements to account constitutes an “underhanded, unsubstantiated [attack] on [your] honesty”. I disagree, and again I cite these comments as evidence supporting that my contentions of dishonest behaviour on your part are substantive:
A reply from you to Phil: Regarding Phil’s contention that I’ve shown that Arrhenius is falsified, sorry, Phil, not so.
Except earlier you wrote to me: So according to all of those good folks, the Arrhenius hypothesis is already falsified.
I specifically challenged you on that statement the very next post: I find it very difficult to read the statement in bold any other way than an attempt to falsify Arrhenius (1896).
If you have clarified this apparent discrepancy, I have not seen it. As I have specifically asked for clarification twice previously and not found an answer, I am finding it increasingly difficult to believe that you have engaged with me and others in a “scrupulously honest” fashion. In addition, you are now saying to me …
Is it clearer on a second reading? Go talk to someone else, please. I’m not interested in dealing with a man who calls me dishonest.
… as if this is the second time you have said those exact words to me. I get it that you don’t like being held to account for changing your story while simultaneously implying that it has been the same all along. However, so long as you declare that I am in the wrong for building a substantive case in support of my conclusions, I will continue to defend myself by citing the ample evidence to the contrary.
You are free to not respond. In fact, I suggest you don’t since you appear incapable of replying to me in a way which does not give me even more evidence to build a case against your allegedly “scrupulous honesty”.
Willis,
I’ve been through the same thing. My condolences.
He will never give up. He’s totally fixated, and an endless nitpicker. If you don’t respond, he will go and pester other commenters with his endless, long commentaries, which never settle anything. Nor do they ever convert anyone to his strange point of view who isn’t already a convert. There are a small handful of strange ones like that. They should just talk to each other, and leave regular folks out of it.
Best to ignore him. Don’t make his problems your problems. Agreeing to disagree only goes so far.
dbstealey,
Not to nit-pick, but … prove it.
See also your endless charges against the consensus along the lines of: when they resort to personal attacks, you know they’re out of arguments.
Ta.
I assume the squid tries to drown the whale by not letting it surface for air, while the whale uses its teeth/jaw strength to cause injury.
And it all happens in the inky black of the ocean depths, maybe not quite so black as we perceive.
u.k.(us),
Turned out quite the tangled mess, innit. I certainly claim no victory — and it would be Pyrrhic if so — except in jest over philincalifornia, aka The Black Knight, who “dragged” me into this fracas to begin with. “None shall pass!” indeed. That’ll learn me. 🙂
Stepping back from it all, as I usually do, for a (normally silent) debrief: I do see this discussion as a metaphor for the general climate debate, and indeed all contentious issues of philosophy, science, religion, politics, morality, ethics and the unholy bastard children of any toxic combination of them.
I motion that rgbatduke wins the thread for this observation: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/05/agreeing-to-disagree/#comment-1898673
… the figure presupposes that it is possible to e.g. refute/disprove the central point (assuming that there IS a “central” point and not an entire spectrum of points). But in most cases of interest, the reason that there is an argument at all is that there is disagreement at a more fundamental level than the argument itself. Arguments concerning religion are an excellent example. What constitutes “good evidence”? How do you argue with someone who holds different axioms as a basis for their arguments than you do for yours?
Simply brilliant. I was tempted to weep when I read it for its powerful truth.
I know better than to ask… but what was the truth ?
If you’ve got it, please spell it out.
u.k.(us),
The truth so far as I can tell is that each side here has unresolved differences about how to define a falsifiable hypothesis. I think that’s an incredibly interesting topic and quite important. Agreeing on at least that much I should think would allow a reasonable debate about whether Arrhenius (1896) is falsifiable. Establishing that leads to whether it has been falsified.
My answers, still in dispute are:
1) Falsifiable means testable, which means that counterexamples are possible to observe, and that there is reasonable hope of being able to do so.
2) Arrhenius (1896) is falsifiable.
3) Arrhenius (1896) has been falsified as a whole (re: glacial cycles) but not in part (re: radiative effects of CO2 + H2O feedback).
I do not claim to have “proven” any of them, nor would I. All I’ve done is presented my case for them. I consider them open to challenge, and would prefer those challenges to be in good faith.
Some wag will likely ask for my definition of good faith. And so will it likely go. 🙁
In the future, I’m sure “we” might be able to resist “dragging” you into our fracases.
Then again, you brought it upon yourself, didn’t you ?
u.k.(us),
I entered the conversation of my own volition. How you comport yourselves once I’m here is entirely up to you. Hence “dragged” in “scare quotes”. Which is not to say that when I mouth off and call people asshats I don’t expect some flak in return. I am saying that all participants here are ultimately responsible for their own words: http://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/policy/
You are responsible for your own words.
I don’t disagree with our host about everything.
My main gripe is that philincalifornia asked me a question, to which I gave an answer. He didn’t like it. I asked him specifically why. Read the beginning of the thread to its end. Did he ever answer these to key questions I asked of him?
1) How do you define falsifiability in this context?
2) How is it specifically that Arrhenius (1896) does not meet that definition?
What exactly did I bring upon myself? No, seriously, tell me.
Brandon Gates:
There is no mystery about what is meant by “falsifiability.” An hypothesis is “falsifiable” if susceptible to being proven false. Neither is there a mystery about the manner in which Arrhenius (1895) fails to satisfy falsifiability. This manner has already been described in this thread.
Which is why I’m done here and it’s still:
philincalifornia 2
Brandon Gates 0
… despite his protestations to the contrary.
Rated by level of obfuscation:
philincalifornia: 0
Brandon Gates: 2
Please amplify.
As I’ve said before I’m just playing, I’m not gonna get into the semantics of falsifiability.
But it looks like you got a tough row to hoe. (looking at the comments downstream).
u.k.(us),
The “I brought it upon myself” comment didn’t feel like just playing. That may be my thing to sort out … you and I normally get on pretty ok. And yes, it looks like the party has started again. Phil is still not answering my two questions, Terry is simply repeating what he’s already said …
Oh look, Ron’s in the House. Party on, Wayne.
I’ve repeatedly answered your questions. You’ve repeatedly ignored my answers. In doing the later you’ve employed the fallacy of proof by assertion: one asserts the conclusion to an argument while ignoring the contradictions to this conclusion.
I haven’t even assimilated your two questions Brandon, nor will I bother ever. As Terry has so rightfully pointed out I score zero in the game of obfuscation, so I typically tend not to play that sport. But in the big one, time called, game over:
philincalifornia 2
Brandon Gates 0
It’s not just your second addition to the Loss column in our only two interactions. I am also disappointed in how badly you played – not just the juvenile obfuscation. I gave you the option of cutting and pasting what others might have written. You see, whatever you may think, I actually really want to get an answer, the best current answer to the questions I’ve asked of you.
philincalifornia,
Then you have no business ever asking me or anyone for a falsifiable theory of ANYTHING.
Hmm. As Terry pointed out, right or not, my “failure” to answer his on the topic constituted a “capitulation”. The ground rules in this park are indeed curious.
Hmmm. One of us may be running up our own scoreboard:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MW_NJp28Udc/VNS3EAEqpOI/AAAAAAAAAUs/hjhuLZFkdoM/s1600/hadcrut4%2Bhiatuses.png
Sorta kinda why I asked you this question: The size of that list is quite dependent on which observational data series you consider valid. Penny for your thoughts.
Which you’ve also failed to answer.
ROFL! Ok, firstly, I answered your first “question” directly. Nextly, your first “question” was prefaced by this charming remark: Perhaps when Brandon’s done mentally masturbating on the other six threads, he can let us know.
I’ll cop to having a puerile sense of humour, I was actually laughing when I first read that. But for you to try to take the high ground on juvenile behaviour when “mentally masturbating” was part of your opener? Get stuffed, amigo.
I don’t do goose chases. Without knowing your definition of falsifiable I have to guess at what you’re looking for. No deal.
I can clear it up for you exactly what I think. I think that when I want an answer for something, I hop online and do my own damn homework. I consider that the behaviour of an honest truth-seeker.
The bullshit you’re running? Not so much.
Gates says:
2) Arrhenius (1896) is falsifiable.
Yes, and he falsified it himself in his 1906 paper.
As for the ‘escalator’ that the alarmist cult has taken to lately, arch-Warmist Dr. Phil Jones has his own ‘escalator’, showing that whether CO2 was low or high, the planet’s natural step changes were the same:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hadley/Hadley-global-temps-1850-2010-web.jpg
dbstealey,
Well yes, it’s funny how the escalator goes up. Something must be doing that. Penny for your thoughts.
Ron House,
You used a polysemic term. Please disambiguate.
[Snip. Persona non grata. ~mod.]
[Snip. Persona non grata. ~mod.]
Terry Oldberg,
How do you figure? What answers have I not given PHIL? Or in your words to Ron, “Please amplify”.
No, I told you that I didn’t want to have that conversation with you. That isn’t “ignore”. That’s expressing my will to not discuss a particular topic. I’ve already cited my reasons: I’ve discussed it with you on several previous occasions, without even being able to resolve definitions.
None of this is relevant to the conversation I’m having WITH PHIL. PHIL was the one who initiated this conversation with me, not you. I have given PHIL what I thought he was asking for, PHIL disagreed with me. When I asked PHIL specifically WHY …
1) How do you define falsifiability in this context?
2) How is it specifically that Arrhenius (1896) does not meet that definition?
PHIL did not give me the answers I was asking for. I’ve asked PHIL for his definitions. It’s up to PHIL to provide them, NOT YOU.
Where is there a falsifiable hypothesis/theory of anthropogenic global warming, or anthropogenic climate change, as it stands in April, 2015?
Was that a statement or a question ?
Or just an excuse to link a video ?
u.k.(us) says:
…when it comes down to holding two keys down at the same time, I’m out of my depth.
Me, too. I just use hunt and peck, using one finger on each hand. And on some sites, I only use one finger on one hand. ☺
Brandon will get it. He won’t like it, but he’ll get it.
It was my original question, on which he’s wasted countless hours of his life not answering.
Come on Brandon, let’s get you into rehab ….
Start with that key that says shift on it. Press it down with the forefinger of your left hand and then press the key that has the nice big “N” on it …….
Next week, we’ll be going over the “o” and “w” keys, in case you want to prep.
Wow, don’t know what’s going on between you two, but I know when it comes down to holding two keys down at the same time, I’m out of my depth.
philincalifornia,
At risk of sounding like a broken record, here is the substantive portion of my original response to you:
Well let’s see, AGW is pretty much where it has been since 1896 in terms of falsifiability. The details have been fleshed out quite a bit. If you’ll pardon the pun, ECS is a hot topic this week …
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/04/03/ecs-2k-again/
… as it pretty much always has been since FAR went to press. So from my POV, it’s mostly about getting the fine details less wrong.
1896 refers to Arrhenius (1896) which states in part: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf
If the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
The following formulae express that relationship:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/c/2/a/c2a0e92291f118a8258a19b8fa58bb07.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/2/c/f/2cfca9ed59cb49f7b68570481ee87f53.png
They are current as of NOW, which is April 2015. The link to ATTP’s blog says 2015/04/03 which means NOW, April 2015. It’s a discussion about constraining the value of ECS, equilibrium climate sensitivity. Or in other words, how much global average surface temperatures would be expected to rise for a doubling of CO2.
This is the central argument of AGW as I know it, as current as I know it. Your questions have all been answered exactly as you first asked ….
Where is there a falsifiable hypothesis/theory of anthropogenic global warming, or anthropogenic climate change, as it stands in April, 2015?
…. to the best of my knowledge AND my willingness to do your own homework for you. Which part of any of this do you not understand?
u.k.(us),
I’m not certain, but fairly sure that philincalifornia doesn’t know the the difference between “1896” and “pretty much where it’s been since 1896”. Or is pretending not to. Nobody knows but him.
Just read your comment upthread. “Mental masturbation” is something that scientists often say to each other. I’ve even heard a Nobel prizewinner in Chemistry use it, not at me though, although if he had, I would’ve probably laughed and agreed. It’s up there with [redacted’s] Law – A week in the library will save you an hour in the lab.
Why don’t you stop being a useless dweeb and get into actual science? Despite the difficulties presented by the Laws of Nature, some of which you are beginning to be familiar with, it’s pretty fulfilling.
*Redacted to protect the guilty (A Department Chair in the UC system).
If you meant to say something, it got lost in the jargon, care to try again ?
u.k.(us),
Clarifying that question is directed to philincalifornia, not me, correct?
That bit of snark was indeed, directed @ Phil.
Just makin sure, thanks for confirming.
It appears that not all bloggers are aware of a peculiarity of Arrhenius’s argument. In logical form it is not an example of a syllogism but rather is an example of an equivocation. In this example of an equivocation it is the term “temperature” that changes meaning in the midst of the argument.
While the conclusion of a syllogism is true, the same is not true of the conclusion an equivocation. Thus though it is logically proper to draw a conclusion from a syllogism it is logically improper to draw a conclusion from an equivocation. To draw a conclusion from an equivocation is the “equivocation fallacy.”
A key to subjecting Arrhenius’s argument to logical scrutiny is to disambiguate the language in which this argument is made by replacement of the polysemic term “temperature” by two monosemic terms. I’ll use the terms “equilibrium temperature” and “thermometer temperature” for this purpose.
When this replacement is made, it is revealed that Arrhenius’s hypothesis fails in two different ways, conditional on the meaning that is attached to “temperature.” If it is the equilibrium temperature the hypothesis fails from its lack of falsifiability. If it is the thermometer temperature the hypothesis fails from its contradiction to thermometer temperature data. In the first case, the hypothesis is non-falsifiable. In the second case the hypothesis is falsifiable and falsified. That it is non-falsifiable in one semantic context and falsifiable in another seems to have confused at least one blogger into thinking there was something wrong with my refutation of Arrhenius’s hypothesis.
Terry,
Disambiguating “temperature” requires only reading the paper itself: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf
First paragraph: Is the mean temperature of the ground in any way influenced by heat-trapping gasses in the atmosphere?
As for equilibrium temperature not being falsifiable, working climatologists are well aware that it cannot be directly observed. Knowing this, they approach the problem of estimating ECS several different ways. Knutti and Hegerl (2008) outlines a few of them: http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf
Scrutiny is all well and good. It’s also good to not have tunnel vision when doing it.
Brandon Gates
You appear to agree that the equilibrium temperature cannot be observed but feel that one can assign a value to the equilibrium temperature by assigning a value to ECS.. The hypothesis of the constancy of ECS is, however, non-falsifiable in view of the lack of observability of the equilibrium temperature. Thus this hypothesis is unscientific..
Terry,
Again I refer you to Knutti and Hegerl (2008): http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf
One possible relevance is the discussion of TCR, transient climate response. I ask that you review my citation with that note in mind.
I’m quite familiar with both the short and long forms of your conclusions regarding ECS. On previous occasions when I have met the long form of your proof on its merits, we have not been able to resolve terms, nor come to a mutually agreeable conclusion. My suggestions then, and now, are that you have not considered relevant portions of the primary literature where your specific concerns are addressed. K&H (2008) cited above is but one example.
In general, my short “proof” against your position is that all non-trivial physical sciences mainly rely on inference, which is not logically robust. From that it follows that any deductive line of reasoning which ends in a logically robust conclusion sets an impossible standard of proof, and therefore lacks utility.
Specifically, I believe that your proof against AGW falsifiability, if adopted, would be counter-productive to the scientific pursuit of becoming less wrong about our perceptions of the reality around us.
Here I rely on some unproven axioms which I have previously raised with you in this thread. One example: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/05/agreeing-to-disagree/#comment-1903519
I consider my most substantive and salient portion of that post to be:
You: Do you know of evidence refuting logic.
Me: No. The question makes no sense to me for one thing. I don’t consider that logic is a tangible, concrete, physical, real object. So I very much do not understand how there can be empirical evidence either for or against it.
As well, a challenge to you to substantiate this statement with some specifics: I’m not buying into your attempt at constructing a strawman argument.
I see no response to either of those, only repetition of the same short form of your proof. In this very thread, your observed pattern of abandoning arguments against your position to then trot out the same opening argument elsewhere is something I consider frustratingly tedious as well as unethical.
My opinion of your position and person IS redeemable. If I’ve not made it clear enough how you might do that in my eyes, please do not hesitate to ask.
Once again, you are not playing by the rules. I have composed and published a proof. While acting within the rules you have the opportunity to attempt a refutation of my argument but nothing else. If you attempt a refutation, your argument must be logical. To publish pseudointellectual blather as you just did is out of bounds.
Terry Oldberg,
That’s a fallacious argument by assertion.
If you know of contradictions to the conclusions that :a) you published pseudointellectual blather and b) this behavior is out of bounds, please share them with us.
Terry Oldberg,
Whose assertion is this, yours or mine? To publish pseudointellectual blather as you just did is out of bounds.
According to your own rules: whose burden of proof to that assertion, yours or mine?
If you wish to refute my contention the burden of proof is yours.
Are you guys actually fighting, or just throwing words at each other ? 🙂
u.k.(us),
Mmm, well my view is that he’s gotten himself into a bind by asking me to prove his assertion that my arguments are “pseudointellectual blather”, and isn’t too happy about it.
Terry Oldberg,
Ok fine. AGW is real, reducing CO2 emissions is the way to slow it down, and it is entirely within our capabilities as a species to do it without sending ourselves back to the Stone Age.
If you wish to refute my contention, the burden of proof is yours.
Thanks for playing, it’s been lovely as usual.
You misrepresent the history. Elements of this history include:
1) You claimed that Arrhenius’s hypothesis was true.
2) I refuted your claim and
3) You obsfuscated, partially by spouting pretentious nonsense such as: “your position is that all non-trivial physical sciences mainly rely on inference, which is not logically robust. From that it follows that any deductive line of reasoning which ends in a logically robust conclusion sets an impossible standard of proof, and therefore lacks utility.” The issue of falsifiability, however, falls within the bounds of the deductive line of reasoning which, by your admission, is logically robust.
Terry Oldberg,
I didn’t say anything about “the history”. In the present, you have stated: If you wish to refute my contention the burden of proof is yours.
As I see it, your options are:
1) Retract that statement.
2) Accept that I can make any assertion against your position and foist the burden of disproof on you.
3) Pretend you didn’t make it and change the subject.
I am suggesting that (1) will be the most comfortable option for you to take.
You continuously and apparently willfully fail to constrain your arguments by the principles of reasoning. I’ll play your silly game with you no longer. So long.
@ Brandon,
You deign to give options ?
Might want to take a step back.
u.k.(us),
Normally I wouldn’t. In his case, I’m running his script against me in reverse. Quite obviously he doesn’t like it, and for good reason.
Terry,
You’re wasting your time. The guy has serious problems, so you won’t get anything settled. Everything you write will be endlessly nitpicked, analyzed, and reanalyzed ad infinitum. Everything has to be *just exactly so* in his mind, and if you don’t agree you will be smothered in pixels. He is the poster child for thread-bombing.
dbstealey,
I guess you missed the, oh 10, messages I sent to him saying that I preferred not to engage with him on this topic citing previous cases where that discussion hadn’t been fruitful. I’m not put out that he engaged me regardless — it’s a free Internet, this is Anthony’s house not mine, and I expect my arguments to be challenged here.
When challenged I will respond. As such, I have a response for you: you’re full of [trimmed]
Thanks mod, my apologies for the obscenity. Carp is the more appropriate word.
I asked you nicely to take a step back.
I didn’t see the trimmed word, but if it was factual I assume it was something like “veracity”. ☺
With any luck this little exchange will get more readers to look upthread, to see what brought about his hissy-fit.
dbstealey,
I do so love it that you can read me the riot act and not describe that as a hissy fit. Oh darn, I’m nit-picking again. (muttter muttter mutter)
PS: you do have my personal apology for the swearing. Not me saying you’re full of carp. Or herring. Red herring I should think.
True colors
You and your ambiguities …. 🙂
u.k.(us),
Ok, I hear you asking that here with Stealey. It was a suggestion with Terry. Tad confused here.
I’m cool with stepping back. To be happier about it though, thing I gotta ask is how Stealey gets a free pass for not addressing a single one of my arguments directly. Note that all he did was lay into me, there were no specifics.
This is the internet, your not looking for justice are you 🙂
I’m in a pissy mood, just sayin.
Reading this thread will do that. I wander off, get into a good mood, come back to this one and out comes the lizard brain again.
Good, and if you come back to this case study in your deceitful evasion, blather, phony posturing and inability to do real science, in a week, a month or a year, it will still be:
philincalifornia 2
Brandon Gates 0
We’ve got em right where we want em.
Fighting amongst themselves.
Gates, I’ve given my reasons several times before, and I provided more reasons above. I also gave my point of view on the subject of Arrhenius earlier. As usual you disagreed. No problem. But I note that Planet Earth does not agree with your views, so I’m comfortable in mine.
I call it exactly like I see it. I wear my heart on my sleeve, and what I write is my opinion, no one else’s. So far, I don’t see any reason to retract my views. But I’ve changed my mind before, and I would be really happy if you gave me some good reasons to now. I would acknowledge that, too.
It does seem, um… unusual, that someone would comment around the clock, all throughout the work week and on weekends, day and night, taking innumerable excerpts out of other folks’ comments and then arguing with them. Whether they’re worth arguing with or not. Whether it matters or not.
There seems to be no big picture; no basic principles, or guiding beliefs. It’s just endless arguing all day, every day, which gets really tedious. I’m not the only one who has mentioned that.
If you were convincing skeptics of any serious problem due to putative man-made global warming (MMGW), that would be one thing. You could say, “I’ve convinced Mr. X, Ms. Y, and Mr. Z that there is a serious problem.” But that never happens. So what’s the purpose? You don’t have real live people to talk with at home?
So please, spare us some of the innumerable pixels. The basic question concerns the MMGW scare. Everything else is either peripheral, or sometimes Anthony has posted an interesting article off that topic for variety. But why must you take apart every comment and deconstruct it in minute deetail, so that’s it’s ‘just so’ in your mind? Really, most folks don’t care about teeny-tiny differences. They just want to know if there’s a real problem with MMGW or not.
I’m sorry if I get so frustrated, and I apologize for any hurt feelings I’ve caused. But I’m certainly not alone in what I perceive. What I want is what most folks want: science-based facts and evidence that resolves whether there really is a problem with human CO2 emissions, or not. (So far, all the evidence says there isn’t a problem, and there won’t be.)
I also like Terry Oldberg’s very logical point of view. But I must admit I skip over a lot of his posts too, because I come more from the human nature angle: logic is always very important. But humans aren’t very logical. They need a different kind of persuading, which centers on their best interests. And Terry only comments occasionally; he isn’t found posting incessantly throughout every thread.
Finally, you and Terry arguing in the same thread is like the irresistable force meeting the immovable object. No one will ‘Aggree to Disagree’, which is really what’s needed here. Because the question is the mission of WUWT: finding out the truth, if any, in the climate scare. Is it completely bogus? Or are there solid reasons for concern? And if there are any real problems identified, where is the cost/benefit analysis? We don’t see that discussed much.
Endless bickering solves no problems. Usually it’s due to trolls like “Ron House” and “David Socrates”, who eventually get the boot (not saying that’s in your future). But come on, let’s solve problems, instead of this non-stop arguing over trivial things.
Well, we agree on a lot of things db and we sometimes disagree, and I’m basically in disagreement on that, because it’s not really endless bickering. It’s the rantings and ravings of a man who can’t face up to his own cognitive dissonance, and it’s not going to be endless.
They (Godzilla and Bambi) shouldn’t agree to disagree. On it’s face, this thread shows that Terry has forgotten more than Brandon will ever know about the falsification of hypotheses and its ramifications.
Does he ask to learn something? – NO. Of course not. What he will learn is like touching the third rail.
I think I’m done on this thread. The 10 reasons why I can’t be arsed any more are:
1.
dbstealey,
Thanks, I appreciate that, same apology to you. We’re both passionate about an important and emotional issue.
Ok. Pretty basic. Our emissions are having an effect on climate which is reversible. I believe it is in our best interests to do so, and that we can do it without wrecking the economy. In fact, I think that the process of transitioning to other forms of energy will create more jobs than fewer, and that the near- to mid-term benefits of reducing “real” pollutants like carbon soot particulates, carbon monoxide, NOx, etc., are worth it exclusive of any potential future (and highly uncertain) hazards from AGW.
In a perfect world, I’d like that to be a cooperative effort, NOT brute-force political effort which leaves a significant portion of people unhappy. Nor am I interested in putting the present energy giants out of business, I see them as part of the solution — whatever we do next I’m sure they’re already planning on owning.
I’m not alarmed, I’m concerned. And very frustrated at the political dysfunction on both sides of the aisle that’s making progress tedious, slow and acrimonious. The world is looking to us to lead on this. We’re Americans. We should be able to figure out how to give (most of) the rest of the world what they’re asking for. And probably make money doing it, with cleaner air. What’s not to love?
I’d like that a lot. I liked the original topic of this thread, which was a call from Willis to raise the level of the debate. I thanked him several times for writing it.
Now notice how it is I came to this thread to begin with; my very first post was in response to a challenge issued personally to me. After that, by far the majority of my activity was responding to challenges to my initial answer. Further note that I told Terry several times — five at least — that I didn’t wish to engage him because our previous discussion on the topic had not been fruitful.
I’m willing to do my part to “cool it” and be more substantive, but I cannot do it by myself. Speculating about my personal situation won’t help matters. That doesn’t particularly offend me. What does anger me is when I’m on point, and my personal life is the main response to what I’m writing.
If my “thread bombing” is the concern, I would suggest that the mods step in and tell both parties involved to knock it off, not just me. Were that to happen when appropriate, I think you’ll find me to be quite agreeable about not “clogging up” threads when they get contentious. Otherwise I’m pretty ok with how things have been the past few days. Other threads I’ve been on have been interesting, arguments have progressed, nothing has gone in endless circles, and to my eyes, nobody is more upset than would be expected on such an important and emotional topic.
These are only my thoughts and suggestions, not demands. Overall I’m ok with how things are, with credit and thanks to Anthony for allowing me to be his guest — albeit a rowdy one at times.