tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post2504763359254028139..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Alec Rawls and WUWT deniers fail Christopher Keating's global warming challengeSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-91183040856459027702014-07-30T00:25:17.503+10:002014-07-30T00:25:17.503+10:00I tried to think of an argument about the theory o...I tried to think of an argument about the theory of AGW that would at least get me the $1,000 from Christopher Keating, but I came up empty as well.<br /><br />The theory of AGW is robust.<br /><br />I suspect the honest contrarians are aware of this, and are now "shifting the goal posts" to projections of catastrophic AGW ie who is afraid of a little warming?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11552461190113661645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-41183528740508406232014-07-29T22:20:51.123+10:002014-07-29T22:20:51.123+10:00If a proposition has a necessary consequence and t...If a proposition has a necessary consequence and that consequence is shown not to pertain, the proposition is falsified. If A implies B and not-B then not-A.<br /><br />All that's needed is a necessary consequence of AGW which can be (and is) proven not to pertain. I say "all" but I'm coming up empty on that myself.Cugelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-17467048985167980002014-07-29T22:10:34.288+10:002014-07-29T22:10:34.288+10:00Not yet but I will make efforts to redress that.Not yet but I will make efforts to redress that.Cugelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-13341007743172613382014-07-28T16:36:23.958+10:002014-07-28T16:36:23.958+10:00I think some deniers are confused by the notion of...I think some deniers are confused by the notion of testing null hypotheses. A null hypothesis can be rejected or one can fail to reject it. That's different to "proving a negative".<br /><br />Or perhaps deniers are confused by the fact that absence of evidence is not *necessarily* evidence of absence. But it does depend on whether there is evidence and if so, its nature. <br /><br />There are lots of articles about this weird fallacy of not being able to prove a negative. Some of them refer to proving that a unicorn doesn't live in your garage or proving that there isn't a fire-breathing dragon in your basement. Both of those negatives would be easy to prove or disprove, simply by observation (even or especially if you believed there were such things as unicorns and fire-breathing dragons).<br /><br />If the rain gauge is bone dry, and evidence shows it is working, then I would be justified in treating the absence of water in the rain gauge as evidence that it hasn't rained. Particularly if I stood by the window all day and saw not a sign of rain or a wisp of cloud.<br /><br />On the other hand, if I made a bald statement about the lack of rain based on glancing at the BOM radar map, without seeing what happened earlier in the day, then the absence of evidence wouldn't be sufficient to show it did or didn't rain. I'd need more evidence to prove the absence. A phone call to my next-door neighbours would get some evidence. If they said it rained then that would be that. If they said it didn't I'd probably ask for more evidence because they could have missed noticing a short shower.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence<br /><br />In reality, the deniers wails are only because they have no evidence that the greenhouse effect is not real or that burning fossil fuels doesn't produce a greenhouse gas. On the contrary, the evidence all points to the fact that deniers are woefully wrong about global warming.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-7253799147682596112014-07-28T15:56:36.403+10:002014-07-28T15:56:36.403+10:00Some of the AGW deniers are now trying to revise h...Some of the AGW deniers are now trying to revise history and are claiming that no denier ever said they could "disprove" AGW as it is not possible to "disprove" a theory. Well I refute it revising thus:<br /><br />http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/man-made-global-warming-disproved/<br /><br />It is the JoNova headline that counts, the article itself appears to be a "bait and switch" as she is refering to CAGW, not AGW.<br /><br />I sometimes wonder if by the phrase "cannot prove a negative" the AGW deniers really mean you cannot prove the non-existence of something. It would not surprise mean as AGW deniers do seem confused at the best of times.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11552461190113661645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-113972226489026902014-07-28T09:21:36.235+10:002014-07-28T09:21:36.235+10:00A follower of vukcevic perhaps?A follower of vukcevic perhaps?numerobisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-83990214999314813592014-07-28T08:09:23.911+10:002014-07-28T08:09:23.911+10:00Notice the "solar-magnetic activity"; no...Notice the "solar-magnetic activity"; no mere solar activity for this guy, but solar-magnetic. That's more the sort of thing that can give you super-powers in a lab accident, as may have happened to Alec Rawls. Or again he may be a lab accident. Much remains hidden.<br /><br />And the "sunlight-fueled hocal-pocal discombobulator", just stop it. Only a serious talent could parody these people.Cugelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-19352252365749078292014-07-28T05:29:58.418+10:002014-07-28T05:29:58.418+10:00I laughed out loud when reading Bob's comment....I laughed out loud when reading Bob's comment. Bob, please take that class on Energy Conservation. Seriously, WTF is a "sunlight-fueled recharge-discharge oscillator"? Also, oscillators don't have a direction to their magnitude, they go up and down or back and forth. Those that have direction have forcings, such as CO2 to the atmosphere. Such a simple point, but Bob is clueless.<br /><br />I love sock-puppet Stealey - all huff and puff and no content.Joenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-12514159874340055812014-07-27T20:13:33.725+10:002014-07-27T20:13:33.725+10:00Ideology, ignorance and superstition don't rel...Ideology, ignorance and superstition don't rely on facts and the scientific method. You see that whenever you 'argue' with deniers. That's why all you ever get is is a wallop of gish gallop, misinformation, logical fallacies and ad homs. If there was scientific evidence that it was all due to the sun for example, don't you think that they would be trumpeting it. I also notice that most of the deniers I interact with are incredibly stupid and wilfully ignorant. Instead of taking a bit of effort and time to actually read even the most simplest of information, they instead actively seek out ideological blogs to reinforce their ideology. Climate science is the new version of evolution, and I often see those who reject evolution, also reject climate science. You can't 'see' evolution, like you can't 'see' the greenhouse effect. Both rely on being able to interpret a wide range of 'secondary' data. <br /><br />The closet thing to 'seeing' the greenhouse effect is to look at the earth's radiance.<br />http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif<br /><br />But to many, what they see is just a bunch of funny looking lines. It's just a lot easier to wilfully ignore the data, refuse to investigate it further and just call it a hoax. Davenoreply@blogger.com