He gave two which couldn't be used to falsify AGW, or be falsified by AGW. I can only assume you're pretending not to understand why this is a stupid thing for him to do, for the sake of trolling.
Originally Posted by JohnnyCache
This is a troll job.
You are getting flogged her, but watching you drown in your conspiratorial sewage wasn't actually my point here.
That accusation of religious overtone can work both ways, and it's not a reasonable accusation to level at all proponents of either side of the argument. It's akin to Rivington's Daffy-Duck like bluster about how everybody who disagrees with him is politically biased. Whilst we're abusing religious metaphor, "Remove the plank in thine own eye.."
One bone I have to pick with many agw deniers lies in the subtle religious overtones of their movement - it can't be happening because the Divine world is huge and big and we're all just tiny parts of his plan that can't change the world on that scale. I thought the topics brought up later - how we are, actually, one of the prime shaping factors on the earth - were interesting, and seemingly in refutation of that particular thrust.
Which is a perfectly reasonable position to take whilst still being skeptical about the necessity of the economic burdens being justified by the AGW hypothesis. That's actually my own position. See below re: Pascal's wager.
I also found it refreshing to see someone putting in print pointers to other pillars of the climate debate besides historical data - the problems with historical data are obvious, and many, and it's always struck me that "well, it's not significant data on a geological scale" is actually a very poor refutation - it's essentially saying, "the jury is still out, it could be natural warming.
I assume you're unfamiliar with Pascal's wager, and it's refutation? You're treading in the same mistaken direction.
But AGW, if real, isn't a simple principle of the universe waiting to be discovered, it's an ongoing event that may need to be stopped or derailed. All the debate over relativity did was slow progress of the charting of a natural phenomena, but a conservative view point on climate change carries some risk outside the realms of academia, should the warming be a man made phenomena.
I've already demonstrated scientific fraud which is even acknowledged by people who still broadly support the AGW hypothesis. Go and yell 'Conspiracy Theory!' at somebody else.
It's interesting, though, that in the minds of deniers like cullion, simply saying, "I will never be convinced ... because of X scientist who was a minority opinion holder at one point" ignores the fact that those iconclasts did real research. They didn't simply stand in the sidelines sneering at their fellows, they challenged the status quo experimentally.
It's only fair to note, btw, that cullion did an excellent job of cherry-picking the signees of that open letter - yes, some of them are out of discipline, but the very fact that cullion finds this significant and attempts to use it dis-positively should bind him somewhat to the opinion of the many, many, many signers in relevant fields of endeavor. If posters would be good enough to actually view the entire list, they'll note that cullion managed to find a small scattering of people who signed from a less relevant platform - <10 percent by my estimation.
Of course, cullion is relying on a conspirator's paradox here - believers aren't qualified to believe, unless they are, in which case they're part of the agw conspiracy to bilk the public.
Beautiful troll. Sorry, your logic fell apart too early on in your post for me to take this seriously. Go back and try again.