Show me your predictions!!

Pajama Media ^ | 11/25/2009 | WMBriggs

[bjc]

"So if observations of what happens when it’s hot outside don’t verify AGW, and if predictions of what might happen given AGW were true do not verify AGW, what does? "

[bjc]

Dr. William Briggs points out that all those scary headlines about the supposed effects of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) are no more than circumstantial evidence. Melting glaciers, violent hurricanes, icebergs off New Zealand, pine beetle infestations, floods in Cumbria, Hurricanes in New Orleans are not proofs of AGW. Those who want to prove AGW have to make precise predictions that are unique and distinct proofs of AGW and are not predicted by other theories. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity was not proved by the fact that the sun's gravitational pull bent light, but by the fact that it bent light twice as much as was predicted by Newtonian physics. It would be nice to have some definitive proof along the lines suggested by Dr. Briggs before spending trillions on solving a problem defined by a few facts that wither have historical precedents (e.g., the icebergs, pine beetles, floods and hurricanes) or for which there is a simpler and more compelling explanation (e.g., retreating glaciers due to recovery from LIA or decline in precipitation due to deforestation).

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[Paladin2]

I think the AGW alarmists need to wipe out the Roman Warm Period first.

[ClearCase_guy]

All the climate models predict a Hotspot over the equador as a result of Global Warming.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2393435/posts

It isn’t there. Therefore, all the climate models are wrong. (Probably because they are based on phony data.)

[Marty62]

NATURE will take its course.
The MAN-is-GOD cult will never admit THEY can’t control your lives.

[truthguy]

ping

[Red Badger]

GLOBAL WARMING ROCK

1. If it's dry, it's Global Warming

2. If it's wet, it's Global Warming

3. If it's cold, it's Global Warming

4. If it's hot, it's Global Warming

5. If it's moving, it's Global Warming

6. If it's still, it's Global Warming

7. If it's hard, it's Global Warming

8. If it's soft, it's Global Warming

9. If it's here, it's Global Warming

10. If it's missing, it's Global Warming

[steelyourfaith]

LOL. Thanx !

[DugwayDuke]

Think back to your high science class. Did they teach “the scientific method”? If you’ll remember, that method requires the construction of a hypothesis, the gathering of data, and the comparison of the data to the hypothesis.

But there is more than that. In order for the method to be scientific, the hypothesis must have a critical characteristic. It must be “falsifiable”. That is, it must be capable of being proved wrong.

The hypothesis of global climate change is not “falsifiable”. It cannot be proven wrong. If it is hotter, it is change. If it is colder, it is change. Rain more? Rain less? More hurricanes? Fewer hurricanes? All can be considered evidence of change. If one cannot use the scientific method to investigate climate change, then how can there even be a science of climate change?

[bjc]

I am not sure we are disagreeing. You should read the article more carefully. There are falsifiable predictions in AGW - so I am not sure what your point is. Lindzen’s recent paper on measuring radiation in the upper atmosphere is certainly a test. The issue in Briggs’ paper is to distinguish between events that are uniquely associated with CO2 driven warming and those that are simply events that are compatible with warmer temperatures. There is a huge difference between the two.

[DugwayDuke]

If the discussion were global warming, we would be in complete agreement. However, there has been a sea change. It’s now global climate change caused by man. How can one ever disprove that the climate is changing?

[bjc]

I agree. Climate change is pretty vacuous and covers everything under the sun, so to speak!!