[Truth To Power]

Wrong.

If you can't back your position with arguments, don't bother.

There's no need for any argument. Just because scientific facts are "contingent" doesn't mean they could be false.

I am perfectly capable of pulling opinions from my ass by myself.

Like your opinion that it could be false that CO2 absorbs IR radiation.

Unless there are substances on Earth which absorb negative heat, it is difficult to imagine what sort of natural phenomena could balance out the heating due to AGW.

Solar variation. Orbital cycles. Ocean circulation. Continental drift. The weakening and moving geomagnetic field.

Hello?

[Pants-of-dog]

I think we have answered the question as to how the theory of anthropogenic climate change could be falsified.

Please note that the theory has not been falsified.

[Truth To Power]

I think we have answered the question as to how the theory of anthropogenic climate change could be falsified.

No, you have confirmed that it can't, as it is easily rescued by downward redefinition to make it trivially true, like the claimed 97% consensus view.

Please note that the theory has not been falsified.

The downwardly redefined, trivially true version hasn't and can't be. The screamer version that is purported to justify some kind of costly global effort to reduce fossil fuel use has been: "It's a travesty that we can't account for it."

[Saeko]

No, you have confirmed that it can't, as it is easily rescued by downward redefinition to make it trivially true, like the claimed 97% consensus view.
The downwardly redefined, trivially true version hasn't and can't be. The screamer version that is purported to justify some kind of costly global effort to reduce fossil fuel use has been: "It's a travesty that we can't account for it."

If it can't be falsified, then why do you constantly try to provide evidence against it as if such a thing could exist?

[Pants-of-dog]

If Truth To Power wishes to falsify a specific claim, he is more than welcome to do so.

That would require a clear summary of the claim being falsified and the evidence showing that such a claim is wrong.

[Truth To Power]

No, you have confirmed that it can't, as it is easily rescued by downward redefinition to make it trivially true, like the claimed 97% consensus view.
The downwardly redefined, trivially true version hasn't and can't be. The screamer version that is purported to justify some kind of costly global effort to reduce fossil fuel use has been: "It's a travesty that we can't account for it."

If it can't be falsified, then why do you constantly try to provide evidence against it as if such a thing could exist?

I've never tried to provide evidence that the trivially true version of AGW is false. I have provided evidence that falsifies the screamer version of AGW that is purported to justify hysterical demands for costly, ineffective and harmful efforts to reduce fossil fuel use.

[Saeko]

I've never tried to provide evidence that the trivially true version of AGW is false. I have provided evidence that falsifies the screamer version of AGW that is purported to justify hysterical demands for costly, ineffective and harmful efforts to reduce fossil fuel use.

Do you agree that H2O is a greenhouse gas?

[Truth To Power]

I've never tried to provide evidence that the trivially true version of AGW is false. I have provided evidence that falsifies the screamer version of AGW that is purported to justify hysterical demands for costly, ineffective and harmful efforts to reduce fossil fuel use.

Do you agree that H2O is a greenhouse gas?

So we're back to flogging the trivially true and pretending it's the same as AGW screaming, I see...

[oscar]

[quote="Renato"... Increase of CO2 due to human activity is negligible compared to that which ocurs naturally due to volcanic activity for example. Also the greenhouse effect, whether natural or man-made, is not the only phenomenon that has an impact on climate. Other natural phenomenons may weight it out.[/quote]

Source ? An overwhelming percentage of climatologists and other scientists believe otherwise. It would be helpful to provide evidence which suggests either that rising CO2 levels do not contribute to global warming and/or rising CO2 levels are due primarily to causes other than anthropogenic fossil fuel burning.

[mikema63]

So we're back to flogging the trivially true and pretending it's the same as AGW screaming, I see...

You see, science works through inductive logic. We must move from many trivial things we agree with and work towards the general understanding. This may be hard for you to understand since you want to simply declare whatever you believe to be true as true and ignore everything else while making a fool out of yourself.

[Truth To Power]

So we're back to flogging the trivially true and pretending it's the same as AGW screaming, I see...

You see, science works

You haven't the slightest understanding of how science works, as you have no training in science past high school.

through inductive logic. We must move from many trivial things we agree with and work towards the general understanding.

Oh, OK, I get it.

So, do you agree that the sun warms the earth?

Is that how science works?

This may be hard for you to understand since you want to simply declare whatever you believe to be true as true and ignore everything else while making a fool out of yourself.

Were you considering ever saying anything related to anything I actually wrote?

[mikema63]

Everything you write consists of equal condescension and total bullshit, so I'm never motivated to waste to much time writing about it.

[Pants-of-dog]

Truth To Power,

Please state one falsified claim of anthropogenic climate change theory.

Thank you.

[Truth To Power]

Truth To Power,

Please state one falsified claim of anthropogenic climate change theory.

Thank you.

The claim that the statistical correlation between temperature and CO2 seen in the 1970-1998 period represented a causal relationship of high climate sensitivity that would continue indefinitely.

[Pants-of-dog]

Who made that claim and when?

[Besoeker]

You see, science works through inductive logic.

Science works by proposing a theory that best fits with the known observations at the time.
The most robust theories can withstand testing and verification.

[Truth To Power]

Everything you write consists of equal condescension and total bullshit, so I'm never motivated to waste to much time writing about it.

Too bad neither you nor anyone else can actually refute any of that "total bullshit"...

Who made that claim and when?

All the AGW climate models that have predicted rapid warming in the 21st C caused by increased CO2, based on their misinterpretations of the relationship between rising CO2 in the late 20th C and the contemporaneous global temperature trend.

[Pants-of-dog]

All the AGW climate models that have predicted rapid warming in the 21st C caused by increased CO2, based on their misinterpretations of the relationship between rising CO2 in the late 20th C and the contemporaneous global temperature trend.

Which models are these, exactly?

[oscar]

..
All the AGW climate models that have predicted rapid warming in the 21st C caused by increased CO2, based on their misinterpretations of the relationship between rising CO2 in the late 20th C and the contemporaneous global temperature trend.

So the models are not quite 100% accurate concerning how much "rapid warming in the 21st C caused by increased CO2..." is taking place. Is there any doubt that there is ""rapid warming in the 21st C caused by increased CO2" taking place ?

[Truth To Power]

All the AGW climate models that have predicted rapid warming in the 21st C caused by increased CO2, based on their misinterpretations of the relationship between rising CO2 in the late 20th C and the contemporaneous global temperature trend.

So the models are not quite 100% accurate concerning how much "rapid warming in the 21st C caused by increased CO2..." is taking place.

No, they're wildly wrong about it.

Is there any doubt that there is ""rapid warming in the 21st C caused by increased CO2" taking place ?

Yes. In fact, it clearly isn't taking place.