3 ms·

On technical level you are right: it would be enough. You've given a trivial and totally irrelevant answer, thoguh, because you simply negated the premise the c

by dozzie 10y ago

On technical level you are right: it would be enough. You've given a trivial and totally irrelevant answer, thoguh, because you simply negated the premise the claim was based upon. The claim was laid as "CO2 causes global warming", basing on some correlation in collected data. How can this claim be realistically shown invalid?

dragonwriter 10y ago
> The claim was laid as "CO2 causes global warming", basing on some correlation in collected data. The claim that CO2 causes (or, more precisely, contributes to) global warming isn't based solely on correlation in the collected data on global warming, its based on results separate from climate statistics that demonstrate the mechanism which make CO2 a greenhouse gas (and which also explain other greenhouse gases, and the relative effect of each as a greenhouse gas). There's a whole web of falsifiable (but not falsified, quite likely because it closely reflects the underyling reality) science here.
- dozzie 10y ago
  I see. This thread started with me asking for a way to falsify a hypothesis (CO2 being major cause of the greenhouse effect; we wandered a little too far to global warming). You only provided a trivial reply ("just show that the data the hypothesis was derived from is invalid") and now you throw some generic statements. I don't see how further discussion with you here would lead to anything constructive.
  - omginternets 10y ago
    The reason we gave you a trivial example of how to falsify the claim is because the claim is trivial to falsify. The fact that it hasn't been falsified doesn't mean that it's true, just that it's amenable to scientific inquiry. Anything you might claim now is (at best) shifting the goalpost. However, if you'd like to submit another claim, I'd be happy to share my thoughts on it's falsifiability; maybe you have a less trivial one than "CO2 is a causal force in global warming" ?

by dozzie 10y ago

dragonwriter 10y ago

> The claim was laid as "CO2 causes global warming", basing on some correlation in collected data. The claim that CO2 causes (or, more precisely, contributes to) global warming isn't based solely on correlation in the collected data on global warming, its based on results separate from climate statistics that demonstrate the mechanism which make CO2 a greenhouse gas (and which also explain other greenhouse gases, and the relative effect of each as a greenhouse gas). There's a whole web of falsifiable (but not falsified, quite likely because it closely reflects the underyling reality) science here.

dozzie 10y ago
I see. This thread started with me asking for a way to falsify a hypothesis (CO2 being major cause of the greenhouse effect; we wandered a little too far to global warming). You only provided a trivial reply ("just show that the data the hypothesis was derived from is invalid") and now you throw some generic statements. I don't see how further discussion with you here would lead to anything constructive.
- omginternets 10y ago
  The reason we gave you a trivial example of how to falsify the claim is because the claim is trivial to falsify. The fact that it hasn't been falsified doesn't mean that it's true, just that it's amenable to scientific inquiry. Anything you might claim now is (at best) shifting the goalpost. However, if you'd like to submit another claim, I'd be happy to share my thoughts on it's falsifiability; maybe you have a less trivial one than "CO2 is a causal force in global warming" ?