Sure, it's all explained here: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popp...
What "denialists" don't know is how the hell falsifiable is applied to AGW. From example, Popper lists the following:
1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory ― if we look for confirmations.
2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory ― an event which would have refuted the theory.
3. Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.
4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.
5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.
6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of "corroborating evidence.")
7. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers ― for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a "conventionalist twist" or a "conventionalist stratagem.")
Of that list, I'd say 7. is really very applicable to AGW.
So I'll ask you back, what evidence could I present to you to falsify AGW?
_______________________________________...
Edit: Further words from Popper. If this doesn't apply to AGW, then I'm a monkey's uncle:
“I could not think of any behavior which could not be interpreted in terms of the theory. It was precisely this fact―that they always fitted, that they were always confirmed―which in the eyes of their admirers constituted the strongest argument in favor of these theories. It began to dawn on me that this apparent strength was in fact their weakness.”
Some do, some do not.
Jim Z is getting a hard time, not because of his understanding or intellect, but because he tries to play politics with science. He is out of his depth when it comes to politics, but I suspect that he is actually a decent guy who would be one of the first to help people in his community.
The same can not be said for Sagebrush, who is as evil as the Nazi leaders he frequently quotes, he even went as far as to advocate genocide at one stage. And just like the Nazi's, he only pretends to be a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ in order to get him respectability. For example this time he starts of by openly displaying his bigotry when he chastises those for whom English is a second language. Ironically according to his own dad, he lost the argument when he started name calling in his attempt to make others look subhuman. The Nazi's also used language to dehumanize those they did not like and I seriously doubt any one here denies that this resulted in genocide. Not even the deniers who claim that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
For those who are interested, there is a 5 minute video where Stephen Fry explains how language similar to Sagebrush's use of language can be abused in order to stir up hatred [1]
@ Jim Z, I don't hold myself back when some one says something incredibly stupid and when it comes to your understanding of politics you deserve all you get. When it comes to climate science, you could try to stick to the science, acknowledge or deny whatever you think is right, do not let your lack of understanding of political reality, cloud your judgment of the science. Fox News really is right wing and you are even more right wing. So what? I don't have a problem with that... Really we are not that far apart, in our own way we both care for other humans. We disagree as to what is the best (or more accurately the least bad) way is to organize ourselves politically. But I don't think that we disagree that polluters should be held responsible for the cleanup. Without responsibility (voluntary or enforced) for our own actions both communism and capitalism would fail. (I am not saying you are a capitalist and I know I am not a communist)
When it comes to Sagebrush, Do not be naive, NO PERSON who states "hire the handicapped, they are fun to watch", or advocates to execute over 60 million people for the crime of voting for the wrong politician, can be considered "good natured". He lies and continues to lie, he even contradicts himself on the same page, evil like that need to be exposed to the world and I don't even care who he votes for.
I realize that is a terrible burden to bear, believing in something that isn't falsifiable.
falsifiable:
Web definitions
confirmable: capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation
Edit:
FSM I appreciate that but I suspect Sage is also someone who has a good nature. Since I have the opposite political view of nearly all alarmists, most probably consider my answers politically based. They certainly are but my main point is that I think most of the alarmist's AGW arguments are as well.
It has been my experience on this site that those who have been English handicapped are not the true scientists but the whiny ignoramuses AGW supporters.
Just yesterday I asked a question and several whinys said I made a statement. They didn't know what '?' meant. Ha! Ha!
Just yesterday the question of Al Gore claiming there would be no more ice at the North Pole was denied by the greenies. Some one took the time to find a blurb of it, where he did in fact make that statement. The greenies came back, "Well,even though he did state it, he weally weally didn't mean it. He had his fingers crossed. See it, you run it in slow motion, you will see his fingers crossed." "He was weally weally talking about ice on the Moon." And all sorts of excuses. It was as though we were in different countries. Ha! Ha!
The greenies can't define Climate Change. Why? You can never prove their theory wrong. It is a ghost. It is without substance legally or scientifically. I don't think there are people living on the other side of the Moon, but I can't prove it.
Many of the greenies on this site still claim the that the Earth has heated up in the last decade.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
"Oh well, you deniers just are a bunch of liars." these greenies claim. In other words liars to them means someone who tells the truth but disagrees with them. I think they have their own dictionary. I have many times on this site gone to dictionary.com and copied and pasted the definitions. An honest person would appreciate that but do you get any appreciation from the greenies? No, they turn up their rhetoric and called me a liar even more.
They have an agenda. And if you get between their agenda and a greenie, it is worse than getting in between a junk yard dog and his bone. They have proven this many times. They get mean, foaming at the mouth, vicious and above all they are humorous. Ha! Ha!
Communication here will remain difficult until we all decide to use one language. I would like to vote for English. Will the proponents for Newspeak please vote as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
Here are some warnings for the confused:
? Falsifiable does not mean falsifiable;
? Theory does not mean theory;
? Significant does not mean significant;
? Global warming does not mean global warming;
? Climate change does not mean climate change;
? Unprecedented does not mean unprecedented;
? Denier does not mean denier;
? Paranoid science-hating alarmists means anyone who questions me.
I thought this was good, but I have had to change the subject to make it more relevant:
"Global Warming is not falsifiable as its proponents base the theory on a human text (the IPCC Reports) which provides accounts of Climate Change and other events that cannot be tested by observation or experiment but are instead accepted as infallible truth. This is one of the primary characteristics of pseudoscience. No matter what evidence is presented, there is no way that Climate Change can be contradicted. Even when Global Warming in action is observed, Climate Change always allows for an after-the-fact justification of the inconsistent observation with an argument to authority. Put differently, for any possible observation you can imagine Global Warming can explain away both that observation and its opposite. Only an observation proving that Gore does not exist would undermine the theory, and obviously that is impossible. Since no observation is allowed to contradict Global Warming and it has no predictive value, it is not science. "
A religious AGW cultist questioning others about the definition of falsifiable and unfalsifiable. LOL.
Sure. True science is falsifiable. The CAGW theory is non falsifiable. Even "Skeptical""Science" can't come up with an argument as how you could falsify it.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...
Then of course there are brilliant alarmists who say "You can falsify it by burning up all the fossil fuel in one day and see what happens. Teeeeeeeheeeeeeheeee..." basically proving that there is no real way to falsify the theory.
I have no problem with people's religion. You can believe in the flying spaghetti monster, God, Thor or Zeus for all I care. But religion is not science. It's just not. You can't spend billions fighting a theory that is non falsifiable.
"See? We predicted warmer temperatures because of man made CO2. This proves it."
"See? We predicted colder temperatures because of man made CO2. This proves it."
"See? We predicted less snow because of man made CO2. This proves it."
"See? We predicted more snow because of man made CO2. This proves it."
"See? We predicted less rain because of man made CO2. This proves it."
"See? We predicted more rain because of man made CO2. This proves it."
"See? We predicted weird weather because of man made CO2. This proves it."
JimZ doesn't know, therefore none of us do. But he is a notorious BSer, so maybe some of us DO know.
The more crucial question, not applicable to JimZ who lies when he does know, is
Do denialists know the difference between falsifiable and falsified/
Here is SOME of the observation research JimZ LIES about in denying:
1) Do temperature measurements show the 21st century to be cooler than than the 19th? NO
2) Do CO2 measurements made around the world since the 1960s show a leveling off (because CO2 is plant food therefore it is nothing but plant food because deniers OBSERVE Wattsup BSing to that effect)? NO
3) Has ANYONE ever shown a shred of credible evidence that the 40% increase in CO2 since the 1800s is due mainly to some cause other than fossil fuel consumption? NO
4) Are ocean temperatures cooler than in the 1960s? NO
Are sea levels unchanged since the 1960s? NO
5) Are ice packs and glacier greater in volume than in the 19th century? NO
6) Has ANYONE EVER shown in a peer-reviewed publication that solar variation has had more than a very small impact on long term climate trends over the past century? NO
7) Is the incidence of extreme weather on the decrease? NO
Is there any conclusive evidence supporting any of the 150+ circa two decades old Marshall Institute Exxon Mobil Fred Singer Fred Seitz myths listed here http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument... to be true? NO
8) Or that a tiny handful of renegade scientists in the pay of fossil fuel companies have any credible peer-reviewed rebuttal of the massive century of evidence behind the general consensus supported by over HUNDRED Nobel Prize winning scientists? NO
A credibly yes answer to even one of these questions would justify skepticism. A yes answer to three of four would falsify, convict and completely destroy the 25 year scientific consensus on climate change, based on a 100 years of prior research.
But there has never been anything close to an even plausibly possible Yes Answer to any of them for decades.
And THAT is why you do not see Anthony Wattsup or Lard Mocktone quoted in college science books.
THAT is why oil companies have publicly accepted mainstream climate science for many years now.
THAT is why the nitwit denier wind-up dolls here on YA have not a leg to stand on, and thus lie blatantly, recklessly, idiotically, with hilarious inconsistently, and endlessly. All they have are the old shell games shown long ago (see here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument... ) to be myths, gross distortion, and sleight of hand trickery.
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timel...
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index...
I have never heard anyone say that ever... I'm pretty sure that if someone said that their being a troll lol.
They get confused when you use big words Jim is having trouble with one of them
Falsifiable:able to be proven false
One claim that denailists love to make about global warming is that it is unfalsifiable. But do they have the slightest idea of what unfalsifiable (and falsifiable) means?
How could they? They don’t know the meaning of “science” and they’ve never heard of Karl Popper or Thomas Kuhn.
If you knew what it meant, you would not refer to others as 'denialists'.
