Climate Change denial vs History

And what percentage of the total global warming is attributed to AGW ??

 

Asked and answered. Read the thread

 

The important thing is that Scientists apply those principles.

 

Some (and not most) of global warming is attributable to human CO2 emissions. Glad you have finally come around.

 

Which scientists ?? The IPCC scientists who claim that all global warming is results from human activity ?? Did Michael Mann apply those principles when he dishonestly created his hockey stick from tree ring data which actually show cooling since 1950 (that's the hiding the decline or divergence problem) ?? How would Popper test the GCM models which show a consensus climate sensitivity to CO2 of ~ 3 deg C and a range of 2 - 4.5 deg C ?? What would Popper say about the IPCC lowering the range of climate sensitivity to CO2 to 1.5 deg C based on real world data ??

 

Yes. All Scientists.

How would Popper test what? Now it's my turn to ask if you know who Popper is. Or, more importantly, what he is.

 

The question is clearly stated. The model scenarios and consensus are what is driving energy policy. The lower limit of the AR5 is 1.5 deg C based on observations and not models. Implementation of energy policy to restrict the use of fossil fuels by taxing them will result in economic harm which is regressive with respect to the poor. How would Popper test the models to determine what is the real climate sensitivity to use in formulating energy policy ??

 

Really? That's terrible! Because energy policy by this administration has been horrendous!!!

He wouldn't. He would look at the tremendous body of evidence (and the risky predictions made decades ago about the climate getting warmer) and would probably place Climate Science deniers in the same category as Creationists.

 

You really have no idea on what Popper is all about. The question I posed concerned the 300% range on the Climate Sensitivity to CO2 coming from the models and how to determine what is correct. You response above is stuck in the false assumption that a significant number of people do not agree that human CO2 emissions result in some amount of global warming. The observed climate sensitivity is ~ 1 deg C but the range of the model scenarios is from 2 - 4.5 deg C. How would Popper address this range and determine what the correct value is ??

 

The Deniers are using Popper to "assuage" the Deniers who can not be assuaged.

It's not about science but politics.

Thanks anyway

 

There's an authority on Popper participating in this thread. Maybe he can explain all this to you.

 

I'm all ears

 

My assumption has nothing to do with what people agree or disagree with. It has to do with what peer-reviewed studies agree on.

Each and every one of those studies presents a falsifiable hypothesis. This fact is verified during the peer-review. Each one looks at different aspects of Global Warming. Popper would look at those studies and say that they all submit risky propositions which have not been falsified to this date. And that they are all consistent with the tentative explanation for the anomalous warming is due to human activity.

He would then look at studies which hypothesized other causes for the anomaly, he would conclude that many of them also submitted risky propositions. But that these propositions were falsified. Therefore, Popper would look at the Global Warming of the earth's surface and conclude that the anthropogenic explanation is the working theory at this point, even though he leave open the possibility that new causes, unknown at this point in time, might to be submitted to be analyzed.

He would then look at the hypothesis submitted by Climate Change contrarians which is "CO2 production by human activity will not significantly affect global climate". And he would look at your "1 degree C" hypothesis and would not find peer-review studies to substantiate any of it. But would, however, see many attempts failing. Which gives rise to the so-called "lukewarmers" (Climate Change contrarians that admit that the number is probably not that low, but that the real number is lower than what Climate Scientists estimate)

He would understand that predicting Climate Change is extremely complex. He would see that all peer-reviewed studies to this point have shown a definite correlation. And that, even though causation has not been established with the highest degree of certainty, the risks of not addressing the problem would be extremely high. So I'm sure that he (not as an epistemologist, but as a rational human being) would agree that establishing policy to avert the danger is a higher priority than establishing the exact amount of warming.

However, Popper is an epistemologist. He is not a "prophet". He contributed greatly to the advancement of the Scientific Method. The importance of Popper is that he helped refine the Scientific Method more than probably any other single philosopher.. Popper did not leave "commandments" on earth to be followed. Kuhn also contributed to the progress of the Scientific Method, though through a different approach. Neither of them are meant to be taken as the "holly Gospel"

Now, I don't need any of this. So don't bother responding point by point. I know that if there is ever a set of peer-reviewed studies that would contradict the Consensus position, the right will happily publicize them from here to the end of the Galaxy. So only those who like to "play" at being a Climatologist are looking up these numbers in science-denial webpages. The only thing I need are peer-reviewed studies. And knowing that there are hundreds of them it would be reasonable to expect that I, and any rational human being, will conclude that there is an AGW consensus. That Climate Change is something we need to address.... That defunding research will not help. And that doing "nothing" is absurd.

 

The thing I base judgments on are real world data which indicates that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is ~ 1 deg C. The reliance on peer review is insufficient as the hockey stick papers so very well illustrate. Independent analysis using the full data sets and computational methods are necessary as McIntyre and McKittrick's work showing the dishonesty of the hockey stick papers illustrates.

Popper would not bother with attempting to resolve the ~ 300% range in climate sensitivity to CO2 ?? Popper of course is no longer with us but it's hard to justify that he would not be interested and concerned about the range of model scenarios. Also I'm sure he would be interested in the consensus of economic analyses which indicate that the next ~ 3 deg C of warming (from the year 2000) is net beneficial. If the time period of that 3 deg C warming would be ~ 200 years with the assumption that ~ 100 years from now humans will have developed/invented new energy sources why do anything to reduce the amount of fossil fuel usage. Has there been any work done by others on the approach Popper would have likely taken to address these issues ??

And of course alarmist bias is on full display in the above quote box. The IPCC range of climate sensitivity to CO2 is 1.5 - 4.5 deg C. The real world data indicate 1.5 deg C and the models indicate a range of 2.0 - 4.5 deg C. How would Popper resolve that ??

 

Popper would conclude (not necessarily as an epistemologist but simply as the intelligent human being that he was), that there is much room for alarm.

 

That's an absurd statement which Popper would never make and one you cannot defend.

 

Arguing about what a dead guy would have said is stupid.

And claiming that we need to be exact before we do anything is simply dragging feet

 

Climate, like the weather, changes.
Science wants weather to be static or claim alarming news.
We just had a very wet year in drought stricken California and Science did not predict it.
It was supposed to be last year during El Ninozilla and that didn't happen, as Science predicted.

Using history and biology as my guide, it is evident that there is no climate emergency. Everything is as before. Changing.
Do you think there was any one persons life time when they didn't feel their weather was failing them. Their climate too



Today's Science is so beyond history and biology it has little more validity than sacrificing to the rain goddess. Today's science is bought and paid for.
Here's a grant, verify Global Warming or no more grants for you.

Moi
Biological record as in what plants use to grow there over time.
What animals called it home.

r > g

Thaw and what's left?​

 

Some posters have brought Popper and Kuhn into this argument claiming that their contributions to science (falsification) can bring clarity to the climate sensitivity to CO2 question and range from the models.

We absolutely must be exact in determining what the cost benefit of energy policies are before implementing them and resulting economic harm.

 

It's all about the Benjamin's.

 

There are hundreds of Billions of dollars in play. The GAO stopped reporting specifically on climate change spending after 2010. But I'm sure the spending did not go down as there was no budget - only CR's. All this on AGW of course. It's a great gig for those studying only AGW.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryb...cost-of-climate-change-hysteria/#75165d717ebb

 

I would only be able to defend it before a reasonable person. There is an unmistakable trend toward global warming going on. Any reasonable person would only need to see that the 10 warmest years in history have occurred during the last 15 years. Or that the last 20 warmest years happened in the last 25 years. Or that every year since 1992 has been warmer than 1992 Without even knowing anything else, that would cause alarm to any reasonable person.

Can't say the same for un-reasonable people, though.

 

Ok. So you are in the group that simply denies Science and the Scientific method as a whole.

There is not much I can do to help you overcome that. My only argument Science.

 

25 years is an incredibly small sample size when discussing things like climate. It is a scientifically insignificant sample size....any conclusions drawn from 25 years of data should be laughed at.

The fact remains that the 10 warmest years in history have not occurred during the last 15 years. Unless by "history" you mean since we began keeping records....which isn't an accurate representation of the earths history.

 

Also - anyone who says "The science is settled" doesn't actually understand science.

It's never settled.