"If there is a uniform delay, then we should still see a weekday/weekend pattern."

So you have no idea how oscillatory signals propagate through a non-linear system. That mistake there is enough to dismiss your argument. The buffer is the scale of the Earth, the ocean and a whole bunch of other things. The relevant citation is the body of work by, oh look, Dr. Inez Fung, who is border line obsessive compulsive about tracking down where the CO2 on planet goes. While some of it remains unaccounted for her work can provide you with the mechanisms you are after.

You haven't posted the analysis I asked for. If you don't in your next post then you are going to get the same request for that analysis over and over again. I will not partake in your gish gallop.

I have no problem acknowledging that CO2 has weekly cycles due to human activity. That isn't especially useful when the contribution of CO2 on it's own is not that large without feedbacks. The time constant for the earth to respond to CO2 is larger than a week. You will, as you clearly intend, massively underestimate sensitivity if you do the analysis you are proposing.

What you are doing is like giving someone a large does of paracetamol and then concluding it isn't harmful because the effects take a while to occur.

Weekly cycles in climate. Are you insane?

Your indignation is not evidence, provide evidence.

So you agree, we can exclude absurd criteria for falsification? Glad you agree with me and admit climate science is comprised of falsifiable hypotheses.

"your tests don't exclude natural climate variation as a precedent" - Don't have to, just have to show that clinging to natural variation requires assuming something absurd.

A weekly variation in climate? I'm not sure you know what climate is. I'll repeat my offer to you of a falsifiable claim. After you remove natural variation in the global temperature signal do the spm analysis I told you last time you gish galloped with me on this one. That is you take the climate record from thermometers, any reasonable data set will do, then you subtract off fits for solar variation, cosmic ray intensity, the pacific oscillation, the full shebang. Then look for a deviation from zero in the climate record. If you want to get really fancy include the human CO2 contribution and do the relevant statistical tests. It is a simple analysis to do. I look forward to your results.

"I did answer your question - you just didn't like the answer"

Then where is your explanation for why a precambrian rabbit fossil cant be a weird example of convergent evolution and the other possibilities I made. This is the question I keep referring too. By your standard you have to address every possible rationalisation of a experimental result. So get started, do all of them.

You wont do that though, because this is rhetoric to you, not truth seeking. So you pick the points I make that you think will resonate best. Yes ideas have to be falsifiable, but within something like a foundherentist framework. Like you have illustrated, remote but unlikely possibilities which don't violate the laws of physics without requiring extreme mental gymnastics do not make a theory unfalsifiable (for example your links only show that, given certain assumptions, time travel in which the thermodynamic arrow of time was violated are in violation of the current laws of physics, and I'm always free to question those assumption, but this objection is clearly assinine because 'necessary' is a stupid standard). Your 'necessary' condition renders no endeavour science because we can always engage in mental gymnastics right the way back to solipsism if we want to.

The evidence for climate change is overwhelming. I've offered you basic assumptions you can test which on thier own would falsify that assertion. I've offered you webs of experiments which would falsify it (in the past I've asked you to go away and do the necessary SPM statistics on the global temperature data sets and you haven't done them, instead you are now linking to a blog with the data sets which does exactly the kind of analysis I warned you was invalid). Your standard of falsification cannot be met, except for with theories you like. That is special pleading.

And you make me sick. You still haven't answered my question by the way.

I understand it just fine. Incidentally, to answer my question you had to address every point I listed, you didn't. You instead gish galloped on a different topic, you did this because you hoped to provoke me into looking at that, we can address those points when you completely rule out all the possibilities I listed. I know all the reasons why these arguments don't work, but you cant use any of those reasons because your standard of falsifiability doesn't permit it. But you wont admit to losing this debate because you aren't trying to win this debate, this is likely about serving your paymasters. Any reasonable person reading this will realise you aren't interested in an actual discussion because you don't engage with the other persons points. You don't write refutations, when you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar you just jump on a list of canards.

Incidentally asserting I don't know the difference and linking to a wikipedia page is not a refutation.

Reality does not depend on time travel not being possible, there are several possible theories of time travel, but you cannot just provide argument for why time travel is ruled out by the contemporary rules of physics. You have to explain why. I'm not going to explain why you are wrong about Wall's paper until you refute all the other points I made though. Necessary and sufficient remember. And I'm not makeing a Baseian argument, it is a Kuhnian argument, you have read Thomas Kuhn right? And you are right that this argument is just as bad as intelligent design, you position on global climate change is just like intelligent design and I'm glad you can admit it.

Karma is slashdots reputation system, it is why you are positing in this thread, your likely sock account needs to be seen defending science and shilling in this thread you can do both by arguing against pseudoscience and peddling it. It is fortunate evolution isn't a threat to your likely paymasters. If you aren't a shill just stop positing, no one who isn't getting paid or doesn't think the planet is at stake would keep this up, and you claim the latter isn't the case. Of course you cant do that, can you. Your likely paymasters wont cut you the cheque otherwise.

I'm sorry I'm not responding to that gish gallop. You have admitted your standard of falsifiability is inadequate. You should concede defeat.

I wont stop posting this response to you though, because your paymasters likely have written in your contract that you have to have the last word on every discussion. So you and I will burn karma together yet again. How do you sleep at night?

The web of assumptions that evolution depends on includes time travel not being possible. And the second law. And a whole bunch of other things. You are right, you standard of falsifiability is absurd, which is why no philosopher or scientist uses it. The use a more refined version of falsifiability which admits that any test is contingent on multiple other assumptions, and that a test of any one is inherently a test of the other. There is no such thing as a test both necessary and sufficient in the sense you use it. All we can do is exclude every reasonable objection. As this has already been done and since you now admit that your standard of falsifiability is 'misguided' I take it you are prepared to accept the consensus on global climate change?

For the interested reader, hsthompson69 is likely deliberately karma whoring on this article to facilitate future astroturfing. His response suggests he is currently trying to make it look like I don't think evolution is a legitimate scientific theory by failing to acknowledge that my responses are applying his absurd standard for falsification to it, not any conventional standard of falsification.

That paper doesn't do what you need it to. You need show that time travel is impossible, you need to exclude the null. All Prof. Shengwang Du and colleagues did was confirm that suoerluminal propagation of light did not transfer information faster than the speed of light, something every physicists already warned was likely the case (myself included). You have to provide necessary and sufficient conditions to exclude the null. You also failed to refute all my other points. You still have not answered the question. As a reminder my question was:

"How would you know it was a legitimate fossil?"

To answer this question and meet your standard of falsifiability your next post must include:

1) A peer reviewed study showing time travel is completely impossible
2) Proof aliens do not exist or at least could not have seeded rabbits
3) Evidence that the type of convergent evolution I suggested is impossible
4) A definition of 'legitimate' to which no logically coherent objection can be mounted
5) Proof that the lineage of the modern rabbit is perfectly understood completely ruling out any and all other possible lineages.

And DON'T just do one, you have to do all of them. Necessary and sufficient remember. And when you have done that you need to deal with the next set of objections I pull out on the fly and gish gallop you with ignoring your refutations because no amount of refuted objections builds confidence in a theory, only being falsifiable by your insane standard.

Now, answer the fucking question.

I'm not trying to convince you arsehole, you are a shill, and your style of argumentation makes it clear you know your arguments are weak, making me suspect you are actually paid to do this. This suspicion is heightened by the fact you always reply to posts. I'm treating you like crap so others see me doing it and ask themselves why I have no respoect for you.

That is not a refutation. I'll be sure to let me thesis defence committee know they made a mistake when it comes to my understanding of fundamental physics and my alma mater will be fascinated to know I don't understand thermodynamics. Now do you have an actual refutation and answer to the question which isn't simply a hand waving suggestion of my ignorance. And before you respond suggesting that you can ignore my credentials remember that as you haven't made an argument for why time travel or aliens is not a plausible explanations not ruled out by the laws of physics (along with the other more plausible examples you have chosen to ignroe for shitty rhetorical reasons any moron can see through), so the suggestion I'm uninformed can just as easily be applied to your assertions. You have to provide evidence, and no, links to blogs wont cut it, I want peer reviewed research.

Answer the fucking question.

Ah and so the gish gallop continues. Is the reason you always respond on this issue because if you don't you don't get paid? Answer my fucking question arsehole.

"Good question. We treat it's legitimacy as hypothetical in this case, so we don't have to go down that rat hole and have you imagine all the ways the moon landing was faked"

No, we wont, answer the fucking question. I wont answer any of yours until you do so.

For the interested reader the arrow of time associated with the second law is a statistical result, some physicists argue that it can be used to rule out time travel, but it requires very specific interpretations of quantum mechanics to do so. Those interpretations do no necessarily rule out time travel. Watch now as hsthompson69 refuses to answer the question i set him and instead responds to this clarification. He is doing this because he is likely a shill.

That is a correct name (The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), although it is something of an anachronism as Great Britian is a geographical term for the island that makes up most of the land mass of England, Wales and Scotland. As such the name leaves out lots of islands that are part of the UK, but not part of Great Britian. It's territory in Europe, it's complicated.

So long as you use the UK when you want to refer to all the parts of the UK together and England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland when you want to refer to the specific bits in isolation then most people will be happy. Well, most of the time. Maybe. We English were sort of dicks to a lot of our friends here in the Isles and so some will insist you call them British, and some will insist you call them Irish, Scottish, Welsh, English. It's complicated.