Res Ipsa wrote:Shorter Water Dog: I can’t demonstrate a statistically significant pause, nor can I explain why year to year temperatures should mirror the increase in CO2. So I’ll just retreat to accusing RI of doing all the stuff I do.
This is the standard follow up to the Gish Gallop: throw out a huge volume of crap. Then as each piece of crap is examined, complain that the rest of the crap had yet to be refuted.
Can I prove a negative? No, I can't. Dude, that's your burden. You have not shown a statistically significant warming trend. You have not shown any observed warming to fall outside normal variance. You have not shown CO2 to have a statistically significant impact on the multidimensional climate system.
My goodness. You don’t understand what proving a negative means. You’re the one claiming a pause. Now you dispute the evidence of a warming trend. If there was no previous warning trend, then why were all those deniers screaming about a pause? A pause from what?
A claim that global warming paused is a claim that a trend changed. That’s a positive claim, not a negative claim. Those who claim there was a change in trend carries the burden of proof on the issue of whether the trend changed. When you try to shift the burden of proof to me on that issue, you’re demanding that I prove there was no pause — proof of a negative claim. Still, I’ve given you evidence that the trend continued, which contradicts that there was a pause. So, even though you’ve supplied no evidence of a change in trend, I’ve provided you with evidence that there was no change in trend.
It’s also hilarious that you claim the current warming is due to normal variance but in effect deny that natural variance is present in year to year temperatures. (The latter follows from your claim that the temperature graphs should track the shape of the CO2 graphs.)
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Res Ipsa wrote:Dog's doing the same routine over and over and over again. He runs back to his denier websites, copies a bunch of crap, and posts it again.
And he tells me that research journals are not scriptures LOL. There is a reason why deniers hate the research literature.
This thread is like the movie groundhog day. It keeps starting over. Dog get his azz kicked, gives up, but then starts the debate all over again. The difference is Bill Murray applied what he learned from previous iterations to the current iteration. Water Dog just starts the day over again without applying any of the lessons he learned.
Maybe water dog is a Russian trollbot with a bug that crashes and restarts the program.
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die." - Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
RI, who are these "deniers" you speak of? What is a denier, define this term. Anyone who interprets the data differently than you do? The pause manifests in the data. Those asserting a certain interpretation of the data have to account for it. It is not anybody else's job to reverse engineer their models and point out how they're wrong. This is like arguing a prophet can only be proven false by bringing forth true prophecies. Only a real prophet can disprove a false one. The climate system is complex. We know some things, but we don't really know how it works very well. Pointing out the pause is merely pointing out, hey, uh, your prediction was wrong. Your model sucks. I don't need to show statistically significant suckage. Your model keeps predicting doom, but the actual data shows something insignificant. You have to show significant warming, not me. How could anyone show the opposite without an understanding of the climate system that doesn't exist?
