650 scientists to denounce global warming at the U.N.

[Heretic]

Science either has fact or believes in a current theory. Theories are good guesses based on limited knowledge, associated facts (and even other theories), and assumptions. Until all variables are removed it is a theory. This is basic science 101.

Theories are definitely more than just educated guesses:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science—that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."

Or from the National Academies:

In everyday usage, “theory” often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, “I have a theory about why that happened,” they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence. The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the Sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously. One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.

and

In detective novels, a "theory" is little more than an educated guess, often based on a few circumstantial facts. In science, the word "theory" means much more. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

 

[Heretic]

Why cant people just except there is a consensus on global warming?

For the same reason they reject evolution, the heliocentric solar system, or any prevailing scientific theory - ideology, ignorance, or both.

 

[jfuh]

Science either has fact or believes in a current theory. Theories are good guesses based on limited knowledge, associated facts (and even other theories), and assumptions. Until all variables are removed it is a theory. This is basic science 101.

AGW, Evolution, Big Bang, Universe Expansion and its counter Universe Collapse, even Relativity are all theory.

Gravity - would anyone like to test the theory of gravity by stepping off a building and relying on that infinitesimal probability of there being exotic particles around that invert gravity?

Trying to say that science pure is black and white is just silly. "Scientific Method" is pure, interpretation of the results is not.

Evolution is as factual as the big bang as relativity as gravity and as AGW.
Universal collapse however is not a theory in the way that universal expansion is, not even in the least.
Universal collapse has no experimental evidence to support, universal expansion, and everything else you mentioned there does.
Sure 1+1 does not always equate to 2, there are conditions that can be set up where 1+1 = 0, -1, 3 and so on, but to go with the "it's just a theory" and thus it's not factual, is as valid as saying, let's test the theory of gravity and see what happens when stepping off this 10 story ledge - it's just a theory after all - dishonest, and absurd.

 

[Hatuey]

Why cant people just except there is a consensus on global warming?

Because 3 preachers in lab coats know more then 300 scientists silly!

 

[jfuh]

Why cant people just except there is a consensus on global warming?

Because it's a position that is mostly embraced by liberals, intelligentsia and academia.

 

[RightOfCenter]

Because it's a position that is mostly embraced by liberals, intelligentsia and academia.

You callin' me a librul?:boxer

 

[jfuh]

You callin' me a librul?:boxer

hahaha nope, intelligentsia

 

[JMak]

That is not the scientific consensus on global warming. The consensus is via the scientific publications produced.
Care to guess as to how many produced in nearly 30 years have gone against claiming that AGW is a hoax?

a) Scientific truth is not decided by who has the most hands held up. That's what I am arguing against. I can acknowledge that temperatures are increasing. No reasonable person denies this. What I resist is this garbage that is global warming alarmism, i.e., that warming has all negative consequences, that man can control it, and that we must enact fundamental economic now changes to address it. There is no scientific consensus on these points and even if there was consensus means bunk.

b) I don' know if any such studies exist. I doubt it because scientists don't generally approach questions with such an attitude.

What liberties are being sacrificed?

Not "are" but those that will be sacrificed as greenie weenie bureaucrats take economic decisionmaking away from us in the name of protecting the planet. Whether it's compelling us to purchase "green" products, requiring households to emit x or % emissions, etc. We're already seeing this in the rhetoric of global warming alarmists when they speak about restricting carbon emissions, etc.

Do you believe that the transition to an economy which is intended to mitigate AGW will be without governments compelling citizens via police powers to behave in ways that free peoples would not choose?

Puhlease.

 

[jfuh]

a) Scientific truth is not decided by who has the most hands held up. That's what I am arguing against. I can acknowledge that temperatures are increasing. No reasonable person denies this. What I resist is this garbage that is global warming alarmism, i.e., that warming has all negative consequences, that man can control it, and that we must enact fundamental economic now changes to address it. There is no scientific consensus on these points and even if there was consensus means bunk.

Again, the consensus was not a matter of vote. It's the consensus that is from within the scientific literature with verifiable and rational conclusions.
That you don't like it or that you find it hard to believe is of no consequence.
There are no positives to global warming for civilization as is.
We were the ones that caused it by our actions, and it's not too long a stretch to conclude that we can also resolve it by our actions.
What is so terrifying about economic changes? We've gone through hundreds of economic changes to address certain social, political and even environmental issues. Last time was against sulfurous and nitrous oxides, why do you think that addressing GHG emissions via industrial revolutions to green industry would be a bad thing?

Again, scientific consensus is not reached by a hands up hands down vote.

b) I don' know if any such studies exist. I doubt it because scientists don't generally approach questions with such an attitude.

Precisely 0

Not "are" but those that will be sacrificed as greenie weenie bureaucrats take economic decisionmaking away from us in the name of protecting the planet.

What liberty would be sacrificed? The liberty to pollute?

Whether it's compelling us to purchase "green" products,

Which is bad how exactly?

requiring households to emit x or % emissions, etc.

Do you know how such is/would be accomplished or enforced?

We're already seeing this in the rhetoric of global warming alarmists when they speak about restricting carbon emissions, etc.

like what?

Do you believe that the transition to an economy which is intended to mitigate AGW will be without governments compelling citizens via police powers to behave in ways that free peoples would not choose?

Absolutely. I've no idea what makes you think it will become such a police state to address environmental problems. Have we become a police state when addressing clean air? Clean water?
Since the clean air acts all fuels in the US and Europe have gone clean reducing the amount of smog by the addition of oxygenated fuels, increased octane ratings for increased compression engines directly resulting in increased fuel economy, increased performance but far far less pollutants - how are any of those negative or sacrifice of liberties??
Energy generation plants in order to meat regulations are no longer noxious to live around producing far far less waste and unhealthy emissions - how is that a bad thing? Did you sacrifice any liberty?

 

[Keorythe]

Theories are definitely more than just educated guesses:

Congrats, you managed to expand the term "limited knowledge" I used into 3 large paragraphs. Let me reiterate: Theories are not facts, but our best guess as to how the world works, based on the scientific evidence we have collected.

So lets stick with Webster: theory - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
or
We can use the same National Academies archives :lol:

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it does in other contexts. Neither is a scientific theory a fact. Scientific theories are never proven to be true, but can be disproven. All scientific understanding takes the form of hypotheses, theories, or laws.

Gravity - would anyone like to test the theory of gravity by stepping off a building and relying on that infinitesimal probability of there being exotic particles around that invert gravity?

Evolution is as factual as the big bang as relativity as gravity and as AGW.
Universal collapse however is not a theory in the way that universal expansion is, not even in the least.
Universal collapse has no experimental evidence to support, universal expansion, and everything else you mentioned there does.
Sure 1+1 does not always equate to 2, there are conditions that can be set up where 1+1 = 0, -1, 3 and so on, but to go with the "it's just a theory" and thus it's not factual, is as valid as saying, let's test the theory of gravity and see what happens when stepping off this 10 story ledge - it's just a theory after all - dishonest, and absurd.

Do not confuse gravitation with the theory of gravity which is more than just dropping a pebble on the ground. Likewise trying to say that evolution theory is unified is false since various factions within still debate the numerous gaps and how they are filled. Their own protocols on testible predictions have invalided dozens of their theories. Universal expansion is based heavily off of doppler redshift and blueshift light theories and a strict adherance to cosmological principle. If at any point we suddenly receive new information that shows redshift readings to be altered then we end up with Universal Collapse theory. Crickey! Science can be fun.

While many of those theories you listed do have a great deal of evidence, they can still be disproved if new evidence arrives which invalidates previous evidence. We've seen this before in Atomic theory (all of those neat atom designs we recognize are false), mathmatics, physics (lets not even mention quantum), and dozens of other core fields. They still teach Newtonian physics in school but thats been superceded by Relavistic theory.

What the heck do you think Stephen Hawking attempts to do all day?

 

[jfuh]

Do not confuse gravitation with the theory of gravity which is more than just dropping a pebble on the ground.

Yet, but a theory

Likewise trying to say that evolution theory is unified is false since various factions within still debate the numerous gaps and how they are filled.

None of which challenge the mechanicsms of evolution or that evolution takes place. The debates are on how specific species evolved to others and so on and so forth. Not a challenge of the principle basis of evolution.

Their own protocols on testible predictions have invalided dozens of their theories.

Can you point to a specific?

Universal expansion is based heavily off of doppler redshift and blueshift light theories and a strict adherance to cosmological principle.

As well as the cosmic microwave background.

If at any point we suddenly receive new information that shows redshift readings to be altered then we end up with Universal Collapse theory. Crickey! Science can be fun.

Blue shift is moving towards, red shift is moving away - you seem to have mis matched the two.

While many of those theories you listed do have a great deal of evidence, they can still be disproved if new evidence arrives which invalidates previous evidence.

Any theorum can be invalidated - however to base onto that and call into question without anecdotal evidence in support and say that such theorums are not factual; that's simply academically dishonest.

We've seen this before in Atomic theory (all of those neat atom designs we recognize are false), mathmatics, physics (lets not even mention quantum), and dozens of other core fields. They still teach Newtonian physics in school but thats been superceded by Relavistic theory.

It's far too difficult to explain relativity to elementary students or any student for that matter if you don't first understand newtonian physics and particle vs wave behavior. Which btw the three laws still remain laws.

What the heck do you think Stephen Hawking attempts to do all day?

Get a boner?:mrgreen:

 

[Keorythe]

Yet, but a theory

Do I need to google it for you? Or does the flying spagetti monster not allow it?

None of which challenge the mechanicsms of evolution or that evolution takes place. The debates are on how specific species evolved to others and so on and so forth. Not a challenge of the principle basis of evolution.

Thats generally because the theory is currently accepted. However, while there is no current evidence to disprove the principles now it is not "fact" and can be disproven as new evidence becomes available. This is the gist of the arguement.

Blue shift is moving towards, red shift is moving away - you seem to have mis matched the two.

Negative, you misunderstand my point. We based the expansion theory on redshift readings which in part substantiate the expansion. Should we find that redshift doppler patterns hitting our planet have been altered say through helical arcing or some other bending effect then we would have to reevaluate. Atm, we have no evidence to believe any phenomenon is altering our reception but then our technology is still very limited. This the theory issue clearing up yet?

Any theorum can be invalidated - however to base onto that and call into question without anecdotal evidence in support and say that such theorums are not factual; that's simply academically dishonest.

Once again, negative. Calling them factual is dishonest. Believable, yes of course. Factual, no that just dishonesty. Shall we point to Neutonian theory again (believed to have been a solid theory for years)? How about we go old school and reach back to Phlogiston?

Get a boner?:mrgreen:

Only for redheads

 

[jfuh]

Do I need to google it for you? Or does the flying spagetti monster not allow it?

What does FSM have anything to do with it?

Thats generally because the theory is currently accepted. However, while there is no current evidence to disprove the principles now it is not "fact" and can be disproven as new evidence becomes available. This is the gist of the arguement.

First, go ahead and define what a "fact" is.
Indeed, AGW, evolution, the theory of gravity and even quantum are factual.

Negative, you misunderstand my point. We based the expansion theory on redshift readings which in part substantiate the expansion. Should we find that redshift doppler patterns hitting our planet have been altered say through helical arcing or some other bending effect then we would have to reevaluate. Atm, we have no evidence to believe any phenomenon is altering our reception but then our technology is still very limited. This the theory issue clearing up yet?

No, it's misinformation into blurring the line between what is factual and what is theoretical.
Universal collapse is theoretical, universal expansion is factual - one has been observed and confirmed with anecdotal evidence, the other is simply what could be should certain phenomena be observed and purly only theoretical, not factual.

Once again, negative. Calling them factual is dishonest. Believable, yes of course. Factual, no that just dishonesty. Shall we point to Neutonian theory again (believed to have been a solid theory for years)? How about we go old school and reach back to Phlogiston?

Again, you are left with the need to define the meaning of the word fact.

Only for redheads

Preferably in nurse outfits it seems :lol:

 

[JMak]

Again, the consensus was not a matter of vote. It's the consensus that is from within the scientific literature with verifiable and rational conclusions.

It is consensus. That's it. Nothing more or less. However, that "consensus" is used to bully so-called "deniers" (nice little equivalency with Holacaust deniers, eh?) and push global warming alarmism down our throats.

That you don't like it or that you find it hard to believe is of no consequence.

I didn't suggest it was. I am merely commenting on the state of the scientific evidence. It equal consensus. Consensus merely means that one side has more hands up than the other.

There are no positives to global warming for civilization as is.

No? Vast regions of the earth, say north of 55 degrees, would become more comfortably habitable. More land available for cultivation. Natural resources would be easier to extract. The rain forest folks would be happier as a warmer, wetter world would benefit the rainforests. I mean, I guess you could see these as negatives... :roll:

We were the ones that caused it by our actions,

And here we go...I can accept that the globe is warming. However, that man is primarily responsible for it...not buying it.

and it's not too long a stretch to conclude that we can also resolve it by our actions.

Not a stretch. certainly, when you're starting from the premise that man is causing massive climate change. :roll:

What is so terrifying about economic changes? We've gone through hundreds of economic changes to address certain social, political and even environmental issues. Last time was against sulfurous and nitrous oxides, why do you think that addressing GHG emissions via industrial revolutions to green industry would be a bad thing?

The previous instances you cited did not result in fundamental economic change. The global warming alarmists ain't pushing for mere regulations, but wholesale economic change requiring altering the very basis upon which our economies operate - fossil fuels.

The primary motive, sometimes open sometimes not, is to end the free-market system as we know it. By linking the cause of global warming to the activities of the most productive economies in human history, they can take down capitalism by other means. The analogous battle cry in the 1970s was "resource scarcity," the belief that the world was running out of oil, iron, water, cultivatable land, or whatever; so in order to stave off the big crash, we had to move to immediate state controls over most human productive activity. It's ironic that the solutions to the global-warming problem usually take the form of government regulations, restrictions, and of course massive wealth transfers to pay for the whole thing.

Again, scientific consensus is not reached by a hands up hands down vote.

I'm not saying there was a vote, though the IPCC is kinda rigged up like one.

 

[JMak]

Precisely 0

And so what? Your question was a loaded, hence my initial response.

What liberty would be sacrificed? The liberty to pollute?
Which is bad how exactly?

Nice straw man. You don't want to deal with me in a honest way so you attribute bogus arguments to me...nice work!

The liberty I was referring to was economic liberty. As I noted above, the typical "solution" from the alarmists seems to always involve taking something from someone. Taking more of my income, taking away economic decisonmaking, etc.

It's "bad" because it violates the basic principles of our constitutional republic.

It's bad because as we see now with the auto bailout, the Democrats are pushing bailout in order to compel the automakers to produce vehicles we don't want to buy. Vehicles that are more expensive and will require additional massive taxings to develop the infrastructure for. And rather than developing this in a rational way, we are being bullied into it with threats of another Great Depression looming over our heads.

Absolutely. I've no idea what makes you think it will become such a police state to address environmental problems. Have we become a police state when addressing clean air? Clean water?

Um, taking away economic liberty ain't merely addressing a problem. Imposing regulations to control air pollution doesn't come close to the nature or the scale of regulations that the alarmists propose to impose on us.

Since the clean air acts all fuels in the US and Europe have gone clean reducing the amount of smog by the addition of oxygenated fuels, increased octane ratings for increased compression engines directly resulting in increased fuel economy, increased performance but far far less pollutants - how are any of those negative or sacrifice of liberties??

I didn't say they were. There you go, again.

Wanna address my actual comments?

Energy generation plants in order to meat regulations are no longer noxious to live around producing far far less waste and unhealthy emissions - how is that a bad thing? Did you sacrifice any liberty?

Again, please don't attribute bogus arguments to me.

You being just slightly disingenuous. I'd say dishonest, but I wanna see how far you go with this tactic.

 

[jfuh]

Inhofe: 650 quack scientists denounce global warming at the U.N.

It is consensus. That's it. Nothing more or less.

You erroneously claimed that it was a consensus reached by yay or nay vote.

However, that "consensus" is used to bully so-called "deniers" (nice little equivalency with Holacaust deniers, eh?) and push global warming alarmism down our throats.

Total change of human civilization as we know it ought be alarming, burying your head in the ground and pretending otherwise doesn't make it go away. Simply because it's alarming is by no means a reason to dismiss the science or claim that as such the science is invalid.

I didn't suggest it was. I am merely commenting on the state of the scientific evidence. It equal consensus. Consensus merely means that one side has more hands up than the other.

There is no other side in this case, the "other side" has 0 hands in the literature.

No? Vast regions of the earth, say north of 55 degrees, would become more comfortably habitable. More land available for cultivation. Natural resources would be easier to extract. The rain forest folks would be happier as a warmer, wetter world would benefit the rainforests. I mean, I guess you could see these as negatives...

Utterly ignorant.
But as you claim it, by all means, on what basis do you have evidence that that is what will occur?

And here we go...I can accept that the globe is warming. However, that man is primarily responsible for it...not buying it.

Why not?

Not a stretch. certainly, when you're starting from the premise that man is causing massive climate change.

Man is, that's what the science supports.

The previous instances you cited did not result in fundamental economic change. The global warming alarmists ain't pushing for mere regulations, but wholesale economic change requiring altering the very basis upon which our economies operate - fossil fuels.

Why would a change from fossil fuels be worse? Is there something disasterous about other methods of energy generation?

The primary motive, sometimes open sometimes not, is to end the free-market system as we know it. By linking the cause of global warming to the activities of the most productive economies in human history, they can take down capitalism by other means. The analogous battle cry in the 1970s was "resource scarcity," the belief that the world was running out of oil, iron, water, cultivatable land, or whatever; so in order to stave off the big crash, we had to move to immediate state controls over most human productive activity. It's ironic that the solutions to the global-warming problem usually take the form of government regulations, restrictions, and of course massive wealth transfers to pay for the whole thing.

Again, how do you arrive to the conclusion that changing energy sources alone is enough to end free-market systems? That seems more like irrational alarmism than anything else.

I'm not saying there was a vote, though the IPCC is kinda rigged up like one.

Rigged by who? Prove it's rigged.
And by saying it's hands up hands down suggests that yes, there is a vote.

 

[Wessexman]

Again, how do you arrive to the conclusion that changing energy sources alone is enough to end free-market systems?

:rofl

As if the current energy system is free market.

Conservatives estimates.

Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets 1999: Primary Energy - Table 1. Summary of Primary Energy Subsidy Elements in Federal Programs by Fuel and Program Type on a Budget Outlay Basis, Fiscal Year 1999

Government Subsidies of the Oil and Gas Industry

 

[jfuh]

And so what? Your question was a loaded, hence my initial response.

0 means there is no descent

Nice straw man. You don't want to deal with me in a honest way so you attribute bogus arguments to me...nice work!

The liberty I was referring to was economic liberty. As I noted above, the typical "solution" from the alarmists seems to always involve taking something from someone. Taking more of my income, taking away economic decisonmaking, etc.

How does changing energy sources equate to taking away your income? Are you not charged for utilities now?

It's "bad" because it violates the basic principles of our constitutional republic.

What does? What violates said principles? I hear much screaming about how it's horrible but so far nothing that specifies as to what will be bad or how it will come to be.

It's bad because as we see now with the auto bailout, the Democrats are pushing bailout in order to compel the automakers to produce vehicles we don't want to buy. Vehicles that are more expensive and will require additional massive taxings to develop the infrastructure for. And rather than developing this in a rational way, we are being bullied into it with threats of another Great Depression looming over our heads.

Bush is a democrat?
We don't want to buy high mileage vehicles? You do know there is a back order on cars such as the Toyota Prius right?
What vehicles are more expensive and what vehicles require additional massive taxings? That seems to be again more alarmism that arrises from specious speculation, and that you seem to be blaming democrats adds to it being nothing but partisan hyperbole.

Um, taking away economic liberty ain't merely addressing a problem. Imposing regulations to control air pollution doesn't come close to the nature or the scale of regulations that the alarmists propose to impose on us.

Such as what? What regulation being proposed are taking away economic liberties?

I didn't say they were. There you go, again.

Wanna address my actual comments?

You have claimed economic liberties will be sacrificed, I've asked you how does controlling ghg emissions equate to sacrificing economic liberties.
Controlling ghg's is just that, nothing more. It's the same as controlling CFC's, smog, nitrous and sulfurous emissions, water pollutants and various other toxic chemical controls that have been in effect for the last 30 years without any dent on economic sustainability or freedoms.
So I ask you again, how is controlling ghg's going to become "authoritarian" economic policies?

Again, please don't attribute bogus arguments to me.

You being just slightly disingenuous. I'd say dishonest, but I wanna see how far you go with this tactic.

Then answer the questions - if you are not saying that controlling pollution is a bad thing or does not lead to a bad thing then what in gods name are you saying?

 

[Keorythe]

First, go ahead and define what a "fact" is.
Indeed, AGW, evolution, the theory of gravity and even quantum are factual.

Again, you are left with the need to define the meaning of the word fact.

Ok lets try the dictionary.

Fact - <Latin factum something done, deed, n. use of neut. of factus done, ptp. of facere to do> A concept whose truth can be proved; "scientific hypotheses are not facts".

Stop trying to dodge the truth of the matter. A fact is a fact. A theory is a believable hypothesis supported by some facts and natural laws. I've already provided you with hard evidence of theorum which have been disproved or supercede by newer theories. The above mentioned are NOT above that.

I notice that you tend to pretend that any evidence that counters your arguements are quickly ignored or labelled as "non-scientific" (I seem to remember a long list of social-economic professors as part of the IPCC "consensus"). I also notice that dessenting scientific opinion whether in peer related literature (such as the 2007 International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society articles or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration articles on atmospheric trends) are completely omitted. Heck, do you even remember how the claim of a consensus came about?

I mean don't get me wrong, its a good debate strategy.

 

[Sir Loin]

Ok lets try the dictionary.

Fact - <Latin factum something done, deed, n. use of neut. of factus done, ptp. of facere to do> A concept whose truth can be proved; "scientific hypotheses are not facts".

Stop trying to dodge the truth of the matter. A fact is a fact. A theory is a believable hypothesis supported by some facts and natural laws. I've already provided you with hard evidence of theorum which have been disproved or supercede by newer theories. The above mentioned are NOT above that.

I notice that you tend to pretend that any evidence that counters your arguements are quickly ignored or labelled as "non-scientific" (I seem to remember a long list of social-economic professors as part of the IPCC "consensus"). I also notice that dessenting scientific opinion whether in peer related literature (such as the 2007 International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society articles or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration articles on atmospheric trends) are completely omitted. Heck, do you even remember how the claim of a consensus came about?

I mean don't get me wrong, its a good debate strategy.

That took you no time at all.:applaud:applaud

 

[jfuh]

Ok lets try the dictionary.

Fact - <Latin factum something done, deed, n. use of neut. of factus done, ptp. of facere to do> A concept whose truth can be proved; "scientific hypotheses are not facts".

AGW has been proved - you guys simply refuse to accept the mountain of evidence and proofs with 0 challenge.

Stop trying to dodge the truth of the matter. A fact is a fact. A theory is a believable hypothesis supported by some facts and natural laws. I've already provided you with hard evidence of theorum which have been disproved or supercede by newer theories. The above mentioned are NOT above that.

Scientific theory is not simply a hypothesis. AGW is substantially supported and solidified by a mountain of factual evidence and proof.
AGW a fact, not some downgraded hypothesis that has no supporting evidence.
Sheesh you're starting to sound like the arguments the creationists are presenting that Evolution is by a believable hypothesis - unless you also reject evolution as "just a theory"?

I notice that you tend to pretend that any evidence that counters your arguements are quickly ignored or labelled as "non-scientific"

If they were scientific, they'd be published in scientific literature - as I've asked, care to guess as to how many papers say that AGW is false or present evidence that says AGW isn't factual or provide any better explaination as to what's happening currently.

(I seem to remember a long list of social-economic professors as part of the IPCC "consensus").

There you go again with the IPCC, social - economic professors at the IPCC? Is that all who attended? What did they base their conclusions upon?

I also notice that dessenting scientific opinion whether in peer related literature (such as the 2007 International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society articles or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration articles on atmospheric trends)

Oh? Perhaps there is a paper that has been missed could you provide any paper from said publisher that supports your claim of "dessent"?

are completely omitted. Heck, do you even remember how the claim of a consensus came about?

Yes, all the scientific literature supports AGW without a single dessent.

I mean don't get me wrong, its a good debate strategy.

Best way to dismiss facts is by devaluing the merits, as in this case calling it a debate strategy.

 

[Wessexman]

People really need to stop this "its just a theory" rubbish, as if that means it is somehow dubious.

 

[PerryLogan]

Needless to say, this is a complete fraud:

Deltoid: 650 international scientists? Err, not exactly.

Last year Inhofe released a list of 400 scientists who disputed mainstream climate science. But as Joe Romm and Andrew Dessler observed, the list was padded with TV weathermen, economists and so on and contained very few actual climate scientists.

 

[JMak]

Re: Inhofe: 650 quack scientists denounce global warming at the U.N.

You erroneously claimed that it was a consensus reached by yay or nay vote.

Link?

Total change of human civilization as we know it ought be alarming, burying your head in the ground and pretending otherwise doesn't make it go away. Simply because it's alarming is by no means a reason to dismiss the science or claim that as such the science is invalid.

I love this crap some of you engage in. You won't address actual points, instead, you fabricate points and bogulsy attribute them to those you disagree with.

Nothing I have said indicates I have my head in the sand. Nothing I have said suggests that I dismiss the science.

I have been commenting about how that science is abused, much you're engaging in now. Of course, I am skeptical, but my comments have regarded how the so-called scientific consensus is being used to bully skeptics.

There is no other side in this case, the "other side" has 0 hands in the literature.

Right, there are no climatologists out there that disagree with the so-called consensus. :roll:

Now who has their head in the sand?

Utterly ignorant.

So warming would not lead to more cultivable land, make it easier to extract natural resources, or anything else? You disagree with that so I am ignorant? Laughable.

But as you claim it, by all means, on what basis do you have evidence that that is what will occur?

Do I really need to muster evidence to demonstrate that global warming will warm certain regions of the earth that are now uncomfortable to inhabit because of the cold or that it would be easier to extract resources if man and equipment didn't have to deal with cold temps, snow, ice, etc.?

Seriously? I mean, this seems like common sense.

Why not?

Because there are many variables that affect our climate. I'm not convinced that man is the only or the primary because I haven't seen convincing evidence of that. I have seen, for examples, that can lead to that conclusion but only by adding substantial "forcings" to create those conditions.

Man is, that's what the science supports.

Is it? The science I have seen indicates lots of things regarding the contribution that man is making to climate change...err...warming.

Why would a change from fossil fuels be worse? Is there something disasterous about other methods of energy generation?

The way it is being proposed is the problem. Rather than permitting individuals to make choices, the typical solution is massive cuts in emissions right now, not a long transition, but rather an immediate reduction in emissions which necessarily requires a slowdown in economic activity. That's the problem.

Again, how do you arrive to the conclusion that changing energy sources alone is enough to end free-market systems? That seems more like irrational alarmism than anything else.

Does it? The alarmists are not proposing a 50-year transition. Internationalists are not proposing a lengthy transition. Additionally, this economy and other free-market based economies are based on the use of fossil fuels. There are no alternatives to that now or for another decade. Imposing the emissions caps demanded by the alarmists necessarily would result in economic slowdown.

Rigged by who? Prove it's rigged.

Who invites the participants?

And by saying it's hands up hands down suggests that yes, there is a vote.

No, I am drawing an analogy. That the consensus essentially reflects the number of hands raised in a classroom rather than scientific truth having been established.

 

[JMak]

0 means there is no descent

You meant "dissent."

0 studies of the sort you described would not exist because that's not how studies are conducted. Hence, you rhetorical question is useless and irrelevant.

How does changing energy sources equate to taking away your income? Are you not charged for utilities now?

Try not to conflate issues. The typical solutions to AGW involve removing economic decisionmaking from individuals and replacing it with top-down central economic planning. That diminishes economic liberty.

What does? What violates said principles? I hear much screaming about how it's horrible but so far nothing that specifies as to what will be bad or how it will come to be.

That's 'cuz you choose to be obtuse.

Liberty is one of the core principles of this nation's founding, right? Imposing central economic planning on us would necessarily violate our liberty to make economic decisions for ourselves, no?

Bush is a democrat?

That's your response?

We don't want to buy high mileage vehicles? You do know there is a back order on cars such as the Toyota Prius right?

There is not. I just heard on NPR two weeks ago about Prius and the Honda model having cars sitting on the lot.

What vehicles are more expensive and what vehicles require additional massive taxings?

These hybrids are more expensive. These hybrids that burn E85 require large government subsidies, up to $0.50 per gallon. Tax incentives are offered to purchasers of such hybrid vehicles.

That seems to be again more alarmism that arrises from specious speculation, and that you seem to be blaming democrats adds to it being nothing but partisan hyperbole.

Your ignorance doesn't make my claims specious.

Such as what? What regulation being proposed are taking away economic liberties?

Regulations that impose cap-and-trade mechanisms to reduce emissions. Gas taxes intended to reduce consumption of gasoline and reduce emissions. Regulsations and taxes that increase the cost of energy.

You have claimed economic liberties will be sacrificed, I've asked you how does controlling ghg emissions equate to sacrificing economic liberties.
Controlling ghg's is just that, nothing more.

You act as though there are no costs associated with regulations. Why do you believe this? A regulation by definition regulates something. How do you suppose industries comply with regulations regulating emissions? Don't you see? Regulations affect behavior, choices, etc.

So I ask you again, how is controlling ghg's going to become "authoritarian" economic policies?

I don't know, I haven't argued that.

Then answer the questions - if you are not saying that controlling pollution is a bad thing or does not lead to a bad thing then what in gods name are you saying?

We're discussing whether regulating pollutants are a bad or good thing.