The Economist Strains to Salvage AGW Theory

[Earthling]

The Economist Strains to Salvage AGW Theory

In science, a valid hypothesis must be predictive. If it is not, it is deemed to be wrong. When it comes to the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (i.e. AGW), the prediction was decidedly straightforward: higher global temperatures. The ‘boiling’ planet of our imminent future was to be directly and undeniably tied to the activity of mankind, generally, and to the burning of fossil fuels, specifically. We were warned only of one, singular, connective truth: the more CO2 mankind deposited in the atmosphere, the warmer it was going to get. Period. Or so the theory told us...

At no time did the warming alarmists predict that the earth’s temperatures would level off. And because the theory did not predict any such stasis, it likewise did not anticipate the need for an explanation of a flattening temperature line. After all, one does not forcefully predict ‘A’ while simultaneously providing reasons for why ‘A’ will not occur.
Fast-forward to 2014 and reality has not gone as the AGW-ers had expected or planned. Indeed, the temperature data are not cooperating at all. But the irksome question is: ....
​

This leaves many more "settled science" questions unanswered.

 

[cpwill]

Look..... just because we said there would be no more arctic ice in 2014.... doesn't mean that we meant that there would be no more arctic ice by 2014....

 

[Earthling]

Good comment here:

jhkrischel • a day ago

Actually, "predictive" is weak sauce - astrology can be "predictive".

To be scientific, you need to have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement. So,

1) a list of observations, which if observed, mean your hypothesis is false;

2) a logical argument that the lack of those falsifications means that your hypothesis must be favored over all others (including the null).

The null hypothesis, is of course, natural climate change explains all observed climate change.

Thus far, no human or group of humans on the planet, in all of recorded history, has ever come up with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW. It is pseudo-science, pure and simple.
Blog: The Economist Strains to Salvage AGW Theory

 

[Tim the plumber]

They would rather understand where the missing heat has gone, and why—and thus whether the pause can be expected to continue.

The most likely explanation is that it is hiding in the oceans, which store nine times as much of the sun’s heat as do the atmosphere and land combined.

Clearly this was not written by any sort of physics trained person.

The oceans as far far more significant heat sinks, in relation to surface temperatures, than the land. The heat capacity of the atmosphere is utterly insignificant in comparison.

 

[Jack Hays]

Antarctic / Sea ice
[h=1]New all-time satellite-era record for Antarctic sea ice extent[/h] The Antarctic Sea Ice Extent on Sept 13 2014 may have set a new all time record (at least for the satellite era, we don’t have data prior to that). Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent With Anomaly Sunshine hours writes: Antarctic Sea Ice Extent Sept 13 2014 – 1,121,000 sq km above the 1981-2

 

[Earthling]

Just for fun

It's so funny, I simply had to post this for all here to see:

CB
"Climate change poses no direct threat to any one living human being"
Doesn't it?
If we aren't headed for complete polar meltdown and 75 meters of sea level rise, just with the CO₂ already in the air, why isn't there a single previous example in Earth's history of polar ice caps withstanding CO₂ so high?
Do you think submerging someone beneath 75 meters of water might pose a direct threat to their survival?
7:37 p.m., Sunday Sept. 14


CB’s comment is in reply to Earthling:

Climate change poses no direct threat to any one living human being, apart from maybe those of you who wish for it most.
There Are Now 52 Explanations For Pause In Global Warming | The Daily Caller

I have to tell you, CB is a female girl person. Ö¿Ö
Probably the most prolific catastrophic climate change crusader commenter at The Daily Caller.

 

[Threegoofs]

Neither the Economist nor the Daily Caller are scientific publications.

Sorry to break that to you. You seem pretty unfamiliar with the material, and I just want to be helpful.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Antarctic / Sea ice
[h=1]New all-time satellite-era record for Antarctic sea ice extent[/h] The Antarctic Sea Ice Extent on Sept 13 2014 may have set a new all time record (at least for the satellite era, we don’t have data prior to that). Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent With Anomaly Sunshine hours writes: Antarctic Sea Ice Extent Sept 13 2014 – 1,121,000 sq km above the 1981-2

You have not thought this through.

Next year when the Antarctic loses ice there will be a chorus of doom!!

"It's started! The end times are upon us! The south pole has lost x many square miles of ice!!! At this rate the whole pole will be gone in 30 years!!!!

Give me lots of money to control....."

 

[Earthling]

Neither the Economist nor the Daily Caller are scientific publications.

Sorry to break that to you. You seem pretty unfamiliar with the material, and I just want to be helpful.

Here's the worst news:

This forum isn't a scientific publication and you're just another climate catastrophist crusader.

 

[Manc Skipper]

It's a matter of some hilarity how the denier cultists have to produce their imagined "gotcha's" on data obtained from "catastrophist" sources, since they have none of their own.

 

[Earthling]

It's a matter of some hilarity how the denier cultists have to produce their imagined "gotcha's" on data obtained from "catastrophist" sources, since they have none of their own.

Name a "catastrophist" source of data?

 

[Tim the plumber]

It's a matter of some hilarity how the denier cultists have to produce their imagined "gotcha's" on data obtained from "catastrophist" sources, since they have none of their own.

This plainly wrong.

The data obtained from the various temperature data sets is very often referred to by skeptics. It is this data of the real world which fuels the skeptical side of the debate.

The criticism of articles in respected news papers is surely a valid thing to do in a democracy.

Are you really unaware of the various other hypothesis about the fluctuations in world climate? CERN cloud experiments news to you?

I ask you to examine your own beliefs about climate change and consider if they are held in a scientific fashion or a religious/faith thing. If you can answer the question "What it would take to change my mind is ......" and that this answer does not involve the changing of other people's mind you are not using faith. If however, you are following blindly the priests of the Green then you are in a cult.