Ah. I think I understand the fundamental problem here.
"Both your's and R13's post revolve around a continuing flaw: you both continue to believe that "a theory can be proven wrong without other theories to take its place."
There is no flaw. A theory either matches reality or it doesn't. If it doesn't, there's something wrong with it. You don't need a "better theory" to know there's something wrong with the old one. Sorry, but it's as simple as that.
Now alarikf admits there are "lots and lots" of "anomalies" in the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) so-called "theory". What he doesn't seem to understand is that if a system has known flaws, any predictions drawn from it are
unreliable, i.e. they may be true but they may not. I consider it the height of stupidity to commit massive resources to solving a "problem" predicted by a system alarikf admits is not a true representation of reality.
"So, to reliably call into question the AGW research program, you have to present another research program..."
Wrong. I (or climate skeptics in general) don't have to do anything but point out "anomalies". AGW fans claim their "theory" predicts a problem and they want to throw money at it. Fine, but it's up to
them to prove their case. As alarikf has pointed out, so far they haven't. Sorry again, but that's the way science works.
"An analogy would be me telling a child "the sky is blue becuase of X..."
Good analogy, because if alarikf told a child that, he'd be wrong.
And the child wouldn't be objecting for objection's sake; he'd probably point out that at night the sky is mostly black.
And more importantly,
he doesn't have to know why the sky is black, just that it isn't blue as alarikf predicted. Of course alarikf could modify his claim to "the sky is
sometimes blue" but that wasn't the original "theory", was it?
"...provide me with a testable supposition that would convince you that you were wrong..."
What alarikf really means is I should provide him with a test that will prove he is right. Fine. All he (or the AGW advocates) have to do is prove their "theory", i.e. remove the "anomalies", match reality, prove that their apocalyptic predictions are true. They could start by proving that the last 25 years are in fact the warmest in 1000 years.
"Do you have a reference?"
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=062706E
The quote is at the top of the page; on the referenced PowerPoint it's on slide 4. Jones' colleague Michael Mann said pretty much the same thing to the Wall Street Journal Februay 14, 2005.
With regard to uncertainties in temperature proxies,
"This is all sort of a 'duh' statement to me..."
Unfortunately that statement doesn't agree with his earlier claim:
"We have detailed and accurate ways of measuring temps up until 1600, and less confidence back to 900 AD."
In fact we don't, as alarikf now apparently agrees.
Finally (whew!),
"Again, I eagerly await a better research program than AGW. Until is happens, well, it's all just whistling past the graveyard."
My point exactly. Now can I buy an SUV?