Falsify This - what contrarians ignore (#5)

This will probably be my last installment looking at my pal K's line of reasoning over at OurChangingClimate's "Is Climate Science falsifiable" comments section.  It's been interesting I learned a few things, in particular today becoming acquainted with Mariano Artigas' examination of Popperian philosophy on fallibilism.  Something that seems much misrepresented on the internet and ties right into the neat little 'arguments' K was presenting. 

 He writes:

"citizenschallenge – the trick is that trivial falsifications do not automatically add up to a falsifiable hypothesis.  

"You need to have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement. 

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."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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

To begin with this "null hypothesis" doesn't make any sense because if we look at the situation from a geophysical perspective there is nothing unnatural about today's increasing greenhouse gas levels causing our atmosphere's insulation ability to increase, in turn causing our planet to warm.

It is only the source, human burning of fossil fuels, that is unique in the long varied history of our planet. 

It would be interesting if K or any other science contrarian can suggest a more meaningful null hypothesis, since his is broken?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

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

Human Knowledge, Reliability and Fallibilism by Mariano Artigas

In doing some research on my next post I came across an essay by  Mariano Artigas.  Although not intended as such, it is an eye opener to the various ways contrarians have been able to misrepresent Popperian philosophy with their disingenuously contorted "necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statements" argument.

I am reposting the following essay complete and unaltered {except for adding paragraph #s, some line breaks and highlights} and hope some will find it informative and helpful in their own educational process.

For a look at Mariano Artigas' larger body of work regarding Popper visit:

The Ethical Roots of Karl Popper's Epistemology

http://www3.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/ti/artigas.htm. 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

This article appears at the website of the 
University of Navarra | Group of Research on Science, Reason and Faith (CRYF) 
http://www.unav.es/cryf/english/conocimientofiablidadyfalibilismo.html

Reposted under authority of CreativeCommons license NC-ND3.0 
along with much thanks to the University of Navarra.

"Human Knowledge, Reliability and Fallibilism"

by Mariano Artigas 
Napoli, 1992

¶1  One of the main subjects that we must face when we consider the image of man in our scientific age is the value of human knowledge which, in its turn, appears to be strongly dependent on our evaluation of empirical science. In this context, questions about the reliability of science occupy a central place. Jürgen Habermas has written that if we were to reconstruct the philosophical discussion of modern times as a judicial process, the only question that should be decided would be this: how can we obtain reliable knowledge? [Habermas 1968, p. 11].

¶2  It is well known that fallibilism is one of the main ideas of the Popperian philosophy and that it implies the negation of any kind of reliability.

Examining denialist dodges #4 K gets down to brass tacks

{edited Wednesday morning}

Slowly wrapping up my virtual dialogue with K at the OurChangingClimate "Is Climate Science Falsifiable" thread, he has drifted a long way from discussing how falsifiability in science works, instead preferring to dodge my questions with diversions into politics, so I figure it's a good excuse to consider the Libertarian Mind in a bit more depth by going through his comment and offering my responses.   As mentioned previous this exercise offers interesting insights into the workings of the contrarian mind and might come in helpful for some.

==================

krischel Says: 

August 18, 2014 at 01:27

@citizenschallenge: You are a natural climate change denier :)

What's that mean pray tell? How can anyone deny natural climate change? 

It appears K hasn't figured out that it's impossible to grasp Manmade Global Warming without first understanding the science of "natural climate change." 

A reminder, K never did respond to my explanation that his "null hypothesis" doesn't make sense, since there's nothing "unnatural" about increased CO2 levels increasing our planet's insulation, nor that humans increasing GHGs will increase global average temperatures.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

K writes

CC: “You dismiss the guy’s academic record”

K: "Because Mann’s academic record doesn’t make up for his lies and fraud."

~ ~ ~ 

{WHAT LIES AND FRAUD?}

I've addressed this echo-chamber fantasy regarding Mann's alleged misdeeds in essay  #3 of this series.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

CC: “Your McIntyre doesn’t understand the science”

K:  "On the contrary, he’s incredibly well educated, and shows his work. Mann hides it behind lawsuits :)" 

~ ~ ~

How's being incredibly educated in mining, and investment strategies qualify him to judge climate science?

Also, what the lawsuit want's isn't Mann's work which is readily available for any serious researcher to examine {don't believe it, click here} - the lawsuit basically want's every piece of paper Mann ever wrote on.  It's a political witch hunt nothing more.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Examining denialist dodges, re Dr Mann #3

In for a nickel, in for a dollar, and I may as well share K's response to my previous post since he's getting a bit heated and demonstrating another typical ploy which affords me another opportunity to examine the anatomy of avoidance.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

K Responds: 

August 17, 2014 at 19:19

@citizenschallenge: “Hmmm, my emotional parody blog?”

~ ~ ~

K : Yes, your emotional parody blog. Unable to confront the rational discourse of people who disagree with you, you’ve created a site dedicated to emotionally lashing out at them. Labeling your opponents “denialists”, you dehumanize them at the very start, unable to imagine anything but pure evil intent on their part.

{de·ni·al, noun:  a) the action of declaring something to be untrue.  b) a statement that something is not true.}

{No buddy, I'm using the term as a descriptive for your attitude of rejecting authoritative scientific information.  

As for "inability to conduct a rational discourse", what about your demonstrated reliance and complete faith in WUWT's storylines and Steve the hostile armchair statistician, {who's work and claims have been examined and rejected, with cause, by a number of actual experts in various fields.} ?

Why isn't any of that good enough for you K?  Instead you reject their informed and considered judgements ... how do you justify that? 

And why shouldn't I call that Climate Science Denial?  Please explain.}

Examining denialist dodges, this time re Dr Mann #2

[new comments added Sunday 8/17 evening]

Here's an update on yesterday's response from my virtual dialogue pal Krischel over at the OurChangingClimate thread "Is Climate Science Falsifiable" - unfortunately I'm stuck working outside all day, so once again don't have the time to compose the post I'd really like to, so here's a quickie instead.

It is intended for folks interested in peaking into the workings of your typical climate science denialist's mind.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

k Says: 

August 16, 2014 at 19:27

@citizenschallenge: “Why not try learning from a wider source pool than WUWT and the Great White Auditor.”

K says: Racist and dodging the issue. Good job! :)

~ ~ ~ 

So sorry, an attempt at levity ... read great white hope ... great corporate free marketeers hope ... 

or perhaps I was thinking of the color of America's right-wing heavy weights.

Either way racism isn't a part of it, but then my intentions won't stop your gross misrepresentations.  ;-}

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

k Says:

CC says: “in deep time those climate fluctuations were initiated by the so-called Milankovitch cycles”

K asks: Tell me, what does a milankovich model predict the global average temperature should be next year? When does a milankovich model predict the next trigger that overwhelms CO2’s greenhouse effect, and drives us into an ice age, while CO2 still increases?

Be specific :)

~ ~ ~ 

CC responds: Sure I'll be specific about where you can start learning about this:

Examining denialist dodges, this time re Dr Mann (#1)

Here's another installment examining the nonsense denialists try to shove down our throats.  Still focusing on the discussion at OurChangingClimate and krischel's gems.   If you are interested in learning about the dishonest tactics of engagement contrarians depend on, please read on.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

citizenschallenge Says: 

August 16, 2014 at 00:32

krischel Says (August 15, 2014 at 22:15):

"Exactly how do you justify hiding a divergence between proxy data and observations? In your own words, please :)"

~ ~ ~

Where did Mann do that? The divergence problem was an area of active study and no one was hiding anything.

Can you come up with a source independent of McIntyre's creative reconstruction ?

krischel responds: 

August 16, 2014 at 01:09

@citizenschallenge: “Care to define odd and novel?”

Sure. The idea that a factor that *lags* temperature change must be the *cause* of temperature change, much less a factor that is measured in parts per million, could overwhelm any other factors is odd and novel :)

~ ~ ~

K's dodge in this case is that he ignores the known fact that in deep time those climate fluctuations were initiated by the so-called Milankovitch cycles which are regular changes in our planet's orbit and rotation.  

These periods of ancient warming were initiated by Earth receiving more of the sun's energy with CO2's impact kicking in later.  The facts surrounding how this process operates has been studied and defined with increasing resolution for the past hundred years.

Misrepresenting such simple facts is another sign of the dishonest nature of your typical contrarian.