Ummmm...yeah. That's called evolution.

I see that rather than choosing to answer straight, you misquoted my remarks to frame them into an argument that you would rather answer. Should this impress me? Convince me that, in the last hour, you can pull some falsification of AGW out of your rear?

It's pretty clear to me that you are no longer up to this. The desperate spray of ridiculous clowns performing tricks to the tune of laughable fallacy? The reframing of my replies to make me the subject?

The NOAA 2008 Model debacle must be a blow for you, huh? I tried to warn you. Don't believe me? Look back over the last 7 posts or so. You just got into a blind rage or panic and start spraying fallacies left and right. I'll admit that you invoked pity.

Next time, check your facts. Heck: bring some facts.

Awesome! Here's a video of a tapeworm. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0Yqh9M_-48

Now, your guy might have more intelligence than a tapeworm. But what about two? Or - three? Hmmmm?

Terrific! Here's a video of a sewage overflow http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzWOOqPAEgs - this sewage overflow producing less of a rancid stream of effluvia than than the blog you quoted.

Yes of course. A whitewash. Did Zombie Tyndal come forward in time and hypnotise the judges? It's a conspiracy maan. A proper, time travellin' conspiracy! How did they get the earth to warm by 0.7C over 100 years? Alien technology man!

This is the imaginary model that you and Watts made up, right?

You maybe read his website and thought it said "model" when it said something else, and then ran you mouth off for a week and a half without ever checking again and having never clicked on the link he so helpfully provided for those don't mind loading up the PDF and pressing Ctrl-F. http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

He (watts) is a moron, a douche and a drooling mouth breather for making that fraudulent claim about the NOAA 15 year climate assessment from 2008. And so is Pielke

You're a moron for believing him and for not checking your facts - and you have the reading comprehension of a 5 year old, and not realising that I told you the model was imaginary about 5 posts ago.

I have noticed over the past few years that ants in my area have "learned" to avoid consuming Raid borax laced syrup. I remember early on in my house that ants would feast on the stuff, sucking large drops dry in a matter of minutes. Now, the new ants crawl up to the syrup I have left, seem to probe it, and then run away quickly. Even if I applied the syrup to an established ant pathway, they go around the drops without consuming any of it. I don't know whether they are averse to eating the sugar, or whether they can somehow sense the borax in the syrup. There seems to be some evolution going on here.

Kind of ironic, since you yourself have claimed that climate models are falisfiable. Do you know what falsifiability is?

Fascinating

And yet, despite your claims of a vast, time travelling conspiracy of climatologists, you are not able to actually provide any empircal evidence of this conspiracy and instead resort to quoting verbatim from other denialists. Do you think clucking from the hen house of denialism is taken as challenge by the scientific community? Do you think that the same claim repeated by someone else makes it seem more forceful? That is just sad.,

Yep. Suck it up dude.

Yep.

Apparently not. You need a lesson on how to read, apparently.

Russell's teapot applies perfectly in this case – Russell surmises that in the case of the unobservable item (the teapot) the burden of proof lies with the asserter (you).

If you insist that you have some empirical proof that God does not exist, you are required to provide it, because the question of the existence of God is non-empirical unlike your own assertion. If you make some statement of belief (e.g. “I believe God does not exist”) this is perfectly acceptable but has no impact on someone who believes otherwise, and no impact on empirical reality.

In contrast, if you make an empirical assertion as you have done, and this assertion contrasts with known science, as yours does, you are unequivocally required to provide proof.

Driven to trolling I see. You are embarrassing yourself.

That's your assertion. Now prove it.

You say that climatologists don't have a falsifiable hypothesis. Now prove it.

Yep. Suck it up.

Listening to me is nothing like listening to you. Don't make me laugh.

That's your assertion. Now prove it.

Exactly. Falsifiability is no different from any other aspect of the scientific method – if you assert that somebody else's published work is not falsifiable and it ought to be, it's up to you to prove it.

Now you're getting it [liiiightbuullllb!]

Ah, so up until recent times there was no fraud, and therefore the science done before, say 1990, is all falsifiable? Thanks for admitting that AGW is true. And since you've already admitted that the models are falsifiable, your arguments concerning supposed fraud by Mann, Gleick, and Hansen are devoid of meaning.

This is a turkey shoot.

Apparently you think you should be free to be able to contradict scientific findings at will and not be called on it. You've equated science with theology. Is scientific theory inseparable from belief for you?

Don't be a dick. What does dickish behaviour gain you at this point?

My response has been “Prove your assertion”.

You've effectively admitted that this is the correct response, scientifically. Well done. So: In the future when posting on slashdot – don't assume that a response of “Prove your assertion” means that your argument has assumed any meaning. Don't assume a lack of response means that you've made a clever argument. You can, instead, assume the opposite.

Pretty much the same form as any other empirical proof of a negative, e.g. “the sun does not revolve around the earth”

Science is the same as theology to you? I see.

Apparently without grasping his meaning. Would you like me to explain it to you?

So, applying your analogy to the current hypothesis “AGW is unfalsifiable” which you claim is scientific, don't you, as the originator and asserter of this hypothesis. have to demonstrate that it is scientific before you usage of the phrase “scientific” is valid?

Hoisted on your own analogy.

Well, then: hypothetically, you could falsify AGW by providing the following:

1. The reasons why anthropogenic CO2 did not warm the troposphere as predicted by Arrhenius and others, confirmed by observation.

2. Detailing your hypothesis that explains the recent warming event coinciding with the historical period beginning at the industrial age, and explaining the following observations:

(a) The increased concentration of CO2 in the troposphere bearing an isotope indicating it's anthropogenic origin

(b) The negative feedback mechanism that overwhelmed the warming predicted by Arrhenius and others from increased concentrations of CO2 of human origin.

(c) The cooling of the stratosphere corresponding to the warming troposphere

(d) The statistical significant ( P >.95) relationship between increased concentrations of CO2 and other GHGs and both the rate and magnitude of change

(e) The reasons why your forcing mechanism has not previously been observed.

(f) The reliability of GCM models based on the assumption of GHG induced warming and associated secondary feedback rates

And then testing that hypothesis in a repeatable manner, proving it, and publishing your results in reputable scientific journal.

No problem. Thanks (sincerely) for admitting that your answer was fallacious.

You've simply restated your hypothesis in a more stupid manner. Describe exactly where in the strata of experiments that underpin modern climatology that a mistake was made.

You've simply restated your hypothesis in a more stupid manner. Describe exactly where in the strata of experiments that underpin modern climatology that a mistake was made.

Not at all. Perhaps you should read back a few posts to see what I actually said concerning the NOAA 2008 model.

Honest mistake on your part. The “disjointed quote” I was referring to was this:

Which you cut from this conversation:

I see you didn't retract your statement: your complete and unconditional surrender is graciously accepted.

Cool story bro. It's a clever trick to say “nuh uh! That's what YOU said” I daresay Mann is quaking in his boots at how clever you are.

Not a problem.

Right. It's part of the "stockpile stewardship" program, or the Livermore Senior Activity Center for Retired Physicists. Nobody in the US has built a nuclear weapon in decades, and everybody who knew how is dying off. DoD/DoE is trying to hang onto the expertise and recruit some new people to at least maintain the ones already built. So they have to have something for them to do.

Mod parent up. Bear in mind how this thing works. There's a resistance heater inside, and it is never completely off for long periods. The claim is that the heat given off by the device is greater than that being pumped in by the resistance heater. The heater is fed with a "proprietary waveform" from a control box the watchers were not allowed to examine. All they could do was put clamp-around current sensors on the leads to the device, voltage probes on the inputs, and feed those to a current meter. I strongly suspect problems with the current measurement.

Those who would trade their freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security.

Ben Franklin

That doesn't help.. Bayesian statistics is difficult to wrap my head around..

<shame>
I have trouble enough understanding the Monty Hall goat-deselection problem without enumerating the solution space..
</shame>

Question: Within the context of quantum mechanic, what is the behavior of TIME ?

AFAIK, it's simplest to describe things with the time-independent Schrödinger equation: H Psi = E Psi. This is close enough for most stable molecular states in chemistry. However, if you're talking about state transitions or spectroscopy or (as in this case) entanglement, you have no choice but to use the time-dependent Schrödinger equation: i h-bar d Psi / d t = H Psi, which is MUCH more difficult.
That H is not a variable but any suitable Hamiltonian operator, which usually has second-derivative goodness AND a complicated Psi-dependent potential energy term. BTW whoever made that Wikipedia page on the Hamiltonian: thank you, it's very clearly written!

AFAIK, entropy is not described at the quantum level, so Ilya Prigogine's "arrow of time" doesn't really exist, and you can just reverse the behaviour of time by putting a minus sign in front of it and see what happens. In Physics, I read this can be done by drawing a Feynman diagram and turning it upside-down.

I hope this helped answer your question...

N.B. if any "real" quantum chemist or quantum physicist reads this and cringes, please mod this down; it's better to give no information than false information!