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. So let me discuss the pyramid shown above.
The problem with proving I’m wrong is that lots of folks don’t understand how to disagree effectively. So here’s the Quick Guide To Proving Willis Is Wrong.
Sadly, far too many folks make their living on the web down at the bottom of the pyramid, name-calling. Whether the insult is “ass hat” or “racist” or “Zionist” or “terf”, that goes nowhere.
Next up the pyramid is the “ad hominem” argument, like “Willis, you can’t be right, you don’t have credentials” or “you post on a ‘climate denier’ website”. Nonsense. The issue is, are my claims true or not? That doesn’t depend on my education, credentials, or where I publish.
Next up the pyramid is responding to tone. It’s where someone ignores the actual claims and issues and instead responds to how it’s presented. That’s something like “Willis, you shouldn’t be so harsh in your arguments.” So what? That doesn’t disprove anything.
Then we have contradiction. Here, the disagreement finally reaches the goal, the actual issues and claims themselves. However, there’s nothing but contradiction—no evidence, no math, no logic. Just “Nope, Willis, you’re wrong”. Again, that goes nowhere. Meaningless.
Then we have counterargument. We’re getting to the good stuff. This first contradicts what I said and then provides observations, evidence, logic, and/or math to support your argument.
Moving upwards, we have refutation. That’s where you first quote my exact words and follow with “Willis, that interpretation of the facts is wrong, and here are the detailed reasons why.”
You have actively refuted exactly what I said. And at this point, for the first time, you’ve shown I’m wrong.
Finally, many arguments rest on a central point. Show that point is wrong and the edifice crumbles. That looks something like “Willis, your central claim is where you say, and I quote, “Germaniums grow better under moonlight.” That’s wrong, and here’s why.”
The top two levels are the only ways to show that I’m wrong, and I invite you to do so—it’s the quickest path to me learning new things.
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 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.
Finally, please, don’t bother with the bottom levels of the pyramid, name-calling, ad hominems, and the like. I’ll just point and laugh.
TL;DR version:
TO SHOW THAT WILLIS IS WRONG:
• Quote exactly what I said that you think is wrong, then
• Show with supporting arguments exactly why it’s wrong
Quoting is crucial. I can defend my words. I can’t defend your rephrasing of them.
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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 @ur momisugly 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.
@ur momisugly 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.