[HitTheTrail]

[nuclear_eggset]

MtnGoat, I'm surprised you made this mistake again, as it's been pointed out many times in this thread. What I wrote is not an argument. It is not a statement for or against anything. It is an evaluation of the open or closed nature of a particular system in an economic sense. It can only be part of data used in an argument, but no argument can be formed until there is a value judgement placed on the various components of the system. I agree that cars (all cars - gas powered ones are subject to the same issues you write about as electric, in differing degrees in different areas) should be subject to the same evaluation. (Heck, *everything* should be subject to the same evaluation.) But getting to the point of "this is something we should or should not do/support/advocate" requires a number of assumptions about relative values of various things. For example, it requires not only identifying the factual impact on, let's say (for a power plant), air/water pollution (and all associated effects - on human health, on local water/flora/fauna, on buildings, etc.), local and non-local employment (and the associated effects), monetary cost of materials for constructions/operation, potential cost of damage from forseeable risks, cost reduction or benefit from power supplied to an area, etc. As a society, we generally consider some of these impacts/costs to be negligible. (We don't generally care if building a power plant in one part of the state is going to reduce economic opportunity in a totally different part of the state. Not always true for every project, but you get the idea.) It's not that the cost actually IS negligible; its that we place no value on the cost. But it is actually still there as part of the true cost. (Yes, in some cases, that actual example would add nothing to the true cost because said plant would not be built anywhere else, but I expect you can extrapolate relevant examples and cases from te idea yourself.) There is usually societal consensus (to some degree) on what relative values of things should be - on priority. (And it absolutely changes in different societies.) But then things shift - like is happening with environmental pollution, right now - and consensus is lost. And things get messy because those assumptions that things with low-valued cost actually had no-cost are shown to be false assumptions. And people who have changed thire value (priority) of those things will clash with those who have not. Cost is cost, to a certain degree. Value is something different, and requires a lot is assumptions. But then, clearly articulating some of those assumptions is difficult for people to do, no matter how vital it is to turning the factual description of a situation into a decision making process about entering the situation or not.

[wolffie]

[MtnGoat]

[joker]

[MtnGoat]

My 'apparent' requirement is nothing more than consistent application of the falsifiability principle. The impossibility of meeting the requirements is simply a burden implicit to the claims being made. Can we falsify some elements of the predictions made, certainly. Can the idea that human CO2 influences global temps at all be falsified? Not without the test case which doesn't exist. What you see as armwaving, I see as bland observation, which while not popular, isn't anything beyond basic application of basic rules.

[joker]

The observation in question is quite narrow, thus claiming that it demonstrates that AGW theory is not falsifiable is hand-waving. You are using a naïve sense of the term "falsification." The fact of the matter is that there are many falsifiable statements which one can construct based on current AGW theory. And that as of this moment, AGW demonstrates better "explanatory power" than any other theory. If we see CO2 concentrations continue to rise over the next century and yet we see global temperatures drop in the same timeframe, without some other very significant change in forcing (e.g. the sun somehow dropped its output by 50%) then I believe we could safely call AGW theory "falsified." Even w/o a "control" planet to compare against. Here's a good discussion along these lines which dissects the notion of falsifiability just a bit and also proposes multiple ways in which we might disprove the theory of human impact on climate. WRT the topic of the thread, I'll repeat that this is at least better than getting into a discussion about whether the creator would have set us up to be able to sully our homes in the way AGW suggests is both possible and happening.

[MtnGoat]

Note that my claim may be narrow, but it is also true. I am using the technically accurate sense of the word falsification. You're demonstrating what I was discussing earlier. The inability to show my arguments are actually wrong, but claiming or implying the same regardless. As for explanatory power, even the need for an 'explanation' is predicated entirely upon the assumption that something is wrong or going wrong with the climate. Once again we find the "begging the question" issue at the root. After all, unless one assumes there is a problem or should be a problem, the explanation is merely that variations in climate are natural and continue to be natural.

[Malachai Constant]

Well those are not arguments to have an argument you must have evidence to back it up what you posited are statements which may or may not be true. Specifically. 1. Consensus is not evidence- even a poll is evidence of what the public thinks. In this case the consensus is of experts in the field. In court scientific issues are usually proven by expert testimony. An expert is even allowed to give their opinion on the ultimate issue. Expert opinion is considered evidence and the opinion can be discussed by other experts with different opinions and prejudice can shown by extrinsic evidence. You have never given such evidence other than unproven conspiracies and arguments over funding. In court experts can be paid for their time taken to prepare their opinion. 2. Correlation is not causation - this is not really an argument. Correlation can be indicative of causation especially if there is an isolated variable. If for example CO2 levels are rising and average temperature is rising and there are no other changes that is indicative of causation. You have introduced no evidence of alternative causation. In fact such causes as solar radiation have actually been decreasing. in any event correlation of CO2 levels with temperature is not evidence of an absence of AGW. 3. Models are not empirical evidence - that is not an argument models are a framework to which empirical evidence is applied. The empirical evidence includes historic and derived temperatures, gas laws, CO2 levels, atmospheric reflectivity, and ocean temperature. The model is more akin to an equation or theroy which is shown to be true or false by the evidence. 4 - 5 you hand waving about falsification is not an argument as others have already stated. In any event it is not an argument the theroy that rising CO2 levels result in global warming. It is merely a statement that you are unwilling to accept the evidence there is.

[joker]

[CC]

[Jake Neiffer]

[Jake Neiffer]

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/science-doubters/achenbach-text This article pokes fun at Portland for voting down another consensus, water fluoridation. Does anybody have a strong opinion one way or the other on fluoridation?

[DIYSteve]

[Lionel Mandrake]

free non-fluoridated water available here: