Fact and theory. In the physical world, there is no such thing as fact. Every single scientific measurement has a margin of error. and they HAVE to state it. So because there is a margin, something based on numerous measurements gets called a theory. Same as relativity or newtons theorys. YOU are just playing games.

> same as the coming Ice age was back in the day
. Please explain. What Ice Age? Back in which day?
.
> Fungus found an article that disputes it
. Apparently you haven't read the replies. Much more than one article has been presented.
.
> and saying I want more proof is a bad thing
. No. That is a good thing. Science is built on asking questions and requiring proof.
. What is bad is ignoring a large body of evidence - whether it agrees with one's position or not.
.
> science claims that theory is fact
. Read the earlier discussion on just what a theory is. Stop reading the popular press - they constantly misuse terms (Global Warming is a terribly inaccurate description) and over-simplify things.
.
> your hitler analogy Mikey fit perfectly
. It may have fit (or may not; that is for others to decide), but it is a very "loaded" analogy. See Godwin's Law.
.
> I'm tired of the BS
. Then quit reading the opinions of those who don't really know and research some of the links given earlier. Don't take my word for it. Don't take kelseymh's word for it. Don't take Kiteman's word for it. We're not experts (although the other two are very knowledgeable). Go straight to the horse's mouth and look at the data yourself. See if their conclusions are logical.
.
> the exploding brain comment was an insult and completely unnecessary
. I can see how it came across that way, but Dr. Kelsey really doesn't seem like the type that would wish harm on others. I took it as a humorous, although poorly worded, expression of frustration.

> the exploding brain comment was an insult and completely unnecessary
. I can see how it came across that way, but Dr. Kelsey really doesn't seem like the type that would wish harm on others. I took it as a humorous, although poorly worded, expression of frustration.

The idea of my death by explosion, is humorous to you and a few others. I guess that is your version of the: be nice policy.

We've been over this! You can just read "Adrian's brain" and I'm sure it'd be much funnier. Shoot, I find that funny.

. What is most humorous is your over-reaction. You can either forget about it or let it bother you the rest of your life - your choice, not mine.

. It may sound like Chicken Little's "the sky is falling," but h. sapiens induced climate change could very well be The End Of The World As We Know It.
. But Earth got along just fine before we came along; I'm sure it will get along just as well when we are gone. ;)

It is not accurate to say that any of you know for sure that climate change is occurring. It is not accurate to say that any of you know for sure that it is caused by humans. Humankind is causing global warming? Where is the scientific evidence? The same people (weather scientists) who cannot tell you what the temperature will be next week to within 10 degrees locally, somehow can tell what the temperature over the whole planet will be in 50 years to within 1 or 2 degrees? I am sorry, but this is scientifically and logically absurd. Scientists have the ability to predict the future 50 years in advance? Show me where they have done it before. I do not think there is anyone alive who can predict what will happen in fifty years. We are not that perceptive. We are not that smart. Around 11,000 years ago there was an ice age. A large part of the planet was covered in ice. It melted. Natural, non-man made global warming. There were no horrible SUVs or despicable corporations or major carbon dioxide pollution from industry that made that happen. The heat from the earth, and the heat from the sun melted all that ice. I have studied the computer models that are used to predict global warming. They are not facts, they are theories. To this day, scientists are not smart enough to measure the total amount of rainfall on the earth in one day or figure out how to accurately measure the actual average temperature of the ocean. Conveniently, these computer models leave out such variables as increased cloud cover, increased volcanic activity, decreased heat from the planet, and decreased heat from the sun. They assume that these variables which actually vary will be a constant for the next 50 years. Any one of these variables could cool the planet 2 degrees or more in the next 50 years. That said, I am totally in favor of cleaner, less polluting forms of energy. I have lived in a solar-electric powered, 400 sq ft cabin for the last 27 years. Are you global warming fear mongers doing as much? Has Al Gore who recently spent $30,000 dollars in one year just to keep one of his mansions warm? No. I believe in doing what I can to reduce my waste and not in trying to force others to do it. As someone brilliant has said: "Waste is the only sin."

I Know that climate change is occuring. I worked close to glacier zones in switzerland and norway and the locals told me that in 50 years the glaciers have gone back a lot. Al Gore showed pictures that say that is a world wide thing. and I live in Canada. They say that in a few years (even climate change deniers like our prime minister) the north west passage will be a main trade route. If a new trade route through what previously was impassible ice is not climate change, what is? Also, birds, their ranges are moving north. Also, garden climate zones in USA, they are moving north. Now, what is climate change if that isn't?

Here's a recent summary article showing the speciousness of the "solar variability" argument. I encourage you to actually read the primary research documents.

Thank you for giving us a link to a site that requires $79 to join in order to read the summery article that you like. Talk about speciousness.

I totally get your point. You believe that it is possible to average out a limited number of temperature measurements from the past, run that data through a half-baked computer model and use that to predict the future average temperature fifty years from now.

Please give us one scientific example where that method has been successfully used to predict an average anything, fifty years in advance.

Okay, here's a PDF version. I do apologize for the link; I wouldn't have used it if I had known about the restricted access.

Wait a second...I didn't get that requirement, and didn't know about it. I'll try to deal with that; if necessary by cut-and-paste. As for the rest of your commentary, presumably you're unfamiliar with celestial mechanics.

Regarding your claim that we can't predict the future climate, given that we don't know what the temperature will be in 10 days. If you flip a coin, I can't tell you whether you will get heads or tails. But I know (for all practical meanings of the word "know") that if you flip a coin 10,000 times, you will get nearly 5,000 heads and 5,000 tails. So there's nothing inherently impossible about predicting larger, longer-term outcomes even if we don't know shorter-term ones.

Thank you for putting it so concisely! The writer's further comments below made it pretty clear that this was a basic conceptual misunderstanding, not anything specific. I don't know whether he's understood this general point about science any better now, or is still wrapped up in the ideology of climate change.

It is not accurate to say that any of you know for sure that climate change is occurring.

Cite your sources. You can read the reference citations for the last three reports from IPCC for all of the evidence to the contrary. If you don't know what you're talking about, you shouldn't speak.

It is not accurate to say that any of you know for sure that it is caused by humans.

We don't know for sure that your brain won't explode before you finish reading this sentence^{_{We can always hope...}}. What we do know, based on year-on-year data from ice core samples going back 500,000 years, tree ring data going back 10,000 years, and ¹⁶O/¹⁸O ratios in sediments going back several million years, is that the combination of CO₂ concentration and temperature rise observed in the past century is significantly (by several standard deviations) larger than any comparable variations during that time.

The same people (weather scientists) who cannot tell you what the temperature will be next week to within 10 degrees locally, somehow can tell what the temperature over the whole planet will be in 50 years to within 1 or 2 degrees? I am sorry, but this is scientifically and logically absurd.

Again, if you have no idea what you're talking about, you would be better off not saying anything. Weather and climate are two entirely different things. Weather is a local atmospheric phenomenon, and is well known to be a highly complex system with exponential sensitivity to initial conditions. That means it inherently unpredictable on long time scales (e.g., more than about a week out). Climate is the long-term regional or global averaged condition of atmospheric, land and sea temperatures, cloud cover and surface reflectivity (albedo), vegetation patterns, etc. As a longer term average, it is not subject to the same sensitivity as weather, and is highly predictable.

You claim to have actually studied this stuff, but your statements indicate that you are either unaware of, not understanding of, or blindly rejecting a vast array of independent research groups' analyses, using data collected planetwide over several decades.

The computer models for climate change? There are several of them, and each one incorporates and quotes uncertainties, which (correctly and appropriately) increase with the time over which the models are integrated.

The models can be tested by running them with input data from some time in the past, and comparing their "predictions" based only on those inputs with the actual climate data observed during the time "predicted." That comparison provides a direct test of the models' uncertainties and biases.

Thank you for hoping that my brain will explode. Some would call that an utter lack of tact and decency. But not I.

To say that Weather is a local atmospheric phenomenon is scientifically inaccurate. In fact the WEATHER is a global, not local phenomenon and it is influenced by the energy and magnetic field from the sun and the earth and the whole solar system. In fact, it is influenced by the whole universe.

Obviously the weather influences the climate. Especially over fifty years. Get real.

To quote you: if you have no idea what you're talking about, you would be better off not saying anything.

Over the last 25 years I have done a fair amount of computer programming. I have learned that all it takes is to change one line of a program to make it go in any direction you want it to. In a global warming programming model (theory not fact) you can easily tweak it to make it look like its cooling or warming.

I also know that when you treat variables such as cloud cover, volcanic action, the energy from the sun and the earth as fixed constants, that is not only bad programming, that is bad science.

>>Some would call that an utter lack of tact and decency. But not I.

Okay, I'm confused...you want us to hope your brain will explode?

Suit yourself...

And nice jab at me. I was pointing out it isn't very nice to compare a Jew to a Nazi.

It appears that my not very subtle sarcasm was lost on you and kelseymh. The point of it was to let him know that I am undeterred when people sink to personal attacks against me because I do not share their opinion. The real question is why did you not find him offensive by his comment and take him to task for it? I guess that those who share your opinion can say anything they like and those who do not are held to a much higher standard of discourse. And by the way, I never compared a Jew to a Nazi. I didn't think it, I didn't mean it and I never said it. Why you would make something like that up is beyond me.

You know what? If it will help, whenever you read kelsey's post, instead of "your brain", read "Adrian's brain", since that *really* seems to bother you.

"We don't know for sure that yourAdrian's brain won't explode before you she finish(es) reading this _{^{We can always hope..."}}

Does that help?

(Actually, this might be a good therapeutic excercise for everyone who knows me. "Adrian's brain exploding...ahhh...what a calming image...I feel better already...") :-D

Haha!

It appears kelseymh's very gentle illustration was lost on you. The point was to show that we cannot be 100% sure of the chances of any future event.

Because it was not offensive. My goodness, he said he hoped it did not happen. You are extremely sensitive if that hurt your feelings. I mean, come on.

And by the way, you DID compare a Jew to a Nazi. Goodhart is a Jew. You compared him and those with similar views to Nazis.

Yeah, I think she should have gone with "Comparing apples to oranges". BTW- I'm certainly anti-polution. I love nature as much as anyone else. But I doubt we understand what's really going on. I think there is a climate change occurring, but I don't know if we have enough info to compare it to. We (mankind) have not been around long enough to know all of the cyclical possibilities. Living "greener" couldn't hurt, but we may be giving ourselves too much "credit" for changing an environment tha tis much bigger than ourselves.

What did I do wrong, again?

The Jew-Nazi comparison was a little out of context IMHO. But Other than that, nothing at all.

But that, in the most literal sense, is what he did.

I'll have to re-read that. The terms Jew and Nazi are such "hot buttons", that I'm always careful to use them in the literal context.

I mean literally because unless I am much mistaken, Goodhart is Jewish.

Um, almost ;-) Just because I have some Talmud study under my belt, and know about the holidays (the Bible is Jewish after all), doesn't mean I am a descendant of Abraham, nor a convert. I am Christian, but not in any way conventionally so.

Jeshua ben Miriam (Jesus son of Mary) was Jewish, and to get context and proper understanding of the time period and the people, one needs know a bit about them _IMHO just as the one wanting to do, um, ballet for instance, would need to know something about the requirements of it. :-)

BTW: I am not offended in the least _{in case you are wondering} with such a mistake. It means I have, at very least, enough understanding to partially live up to a friend of mine's title for me (a Jewish fellow that considers me a viable Torah scholar, which I find very flattering, to say the least).

Ah, I see. Apologies.

Oh no, definitely no need for an apology here, I find the reference a bit flattering myself. :-) and as I said in my PM, it is a title, like A rose is a rose, and by any other name is still a rose. We need not get hung up on titles, but with what we are inside, and in here, we can only see that by what we write.

Oh. Check my PM.

If my brain explodes, I hope someone puts it on Youtube.

Yah! Mine too! We could do an exploding brain compilation...

BAM goes Kiteman, SIZZLE goes Hyneman, SPLOOSH went Nacho Mahma, <error 40 4not found> went Obama...

To the tune of "Ode to Joy"

Oh my goodness, that's funny!

I would have thought the Canon Symphony a better choice ;-)

. hadn't even been planning on a Obama pun until it was the first name i could think of rhyming with "Mahma"

Not that I feel this way, but another Pun could be: Are we headed towards an Obama-nation ? ;-)

Thank Jon Stewart for that one :-) He used it during the 2007 portion of the campaign, to refer to the somewhat, er, excessive Obama fans :-/

Really? I hadn't heard that, but then I don't follow poly-ticks too closely (but I was, er, watching _{and fearing} that Palin character LOL

. This chart (or a similar one I saw somewhere else) is what convinced me that the current climate changes are, at the very least, greatly exacerbated by human activity. Looking at the rate and magnitude of change, I'd say we are the main cause.

I should have said this earlier...thank you very much for finding that link! When I've talked about "several sigma beyond" other natural variations, it's exactly that rise I've meant. I just didn't have the plot at hand.

. Google and Wikipedia are your friends.

That was a little compelling. I've doubted that we are PRIMARILY to blame, but I'll reconsider.

. I was in the same boat as you - yeah, we might be making it a little worse, but not enough to really matter.
. The recent changes are just soooo much greater than anything previously recorded.

You wrote, "To say that Weather is a local atmospheric phenomenon is scientifically inaccurate. In fact the WEATHER is a global, not local phenomenon and it is influenced by the energy and magnetic field from the sun and the earth and the whole solar system. In fact, it is influenced by the whole universe."

Sorry, the existence of weather is a global phenomenon. Weather (i.e., the particular activity of the atmosphere that you previously so accurately pointed out was not predictable) is absolutely a local phenomenon. The weather here is not the same as the weather there, and is completely different from the weather in that other place.

What you're pointing out is merely that the planet is not a closed thermodynamic system, and neither is any local region of the planet. Energy input is received from elsewhere (primarily solar energy), and is emitted again. It's that open-system situation that makes weather unpredictable.

At the same time integrating over the whole planet is predictable, because (by definition) all of the regional energy exchanges which drive the unpredictable local weather average out.

I am not taking sides at all, really,but every first semester statistics student learns that

Correlation does NOT imply causation

. However, correlation is required to prove causation. ;)

Yes, of course.

Which is why you also need to read the primary source documents -- the research publications cited in the IPCC documents -- to see the evidence both for correlation (the start of the current extreme CO₂ increase and warming coincident with European and American industrialization) and for causation (increases in various greenhouse gases coincident with industrial production and use of those gases, decreases coincident with their disuse).

You statement on what is causation is not related to global warming at all, just that when people put more gases into the atmosphere, there are more of those gases in the atmosphere, that is not causation, that is just common sense.

See NM's comment to which you agreed. I pointed out to you the underlying data supporting the causal connection -- measured increases of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, coincident with independently known use of those gases in industrialized countries, followed later in time with decreases coincident with their disuse. That is the data which supports the causal argument.

If you don't like it, that's your problem. But it's not a logical issue, it's your choice to ignore evidence that doesn't fit your preconceived notions.

There is a correlation between the amount of greenhouse gas in the air and the amount that humans produce, and I agree that that is probably causal, but the Earth does go through natural cycles, and I think that this may be one of them. Before, I was missing the connection between the gases and global warming and I was not connecting your two statements, sorry. I do not have any pre-conceived notion for or against global warming, but I agree that the Earth is warming up, I have yet to see enough evidence to convince myself that it was caused by humans. I don't really care if human are causing it or not because I still think that we need to clean up the planet and stop using fossil fules for both environmental and defense reasons.

There is a decent summary discussion with references on (of all places) Wikipedia. If you are unable or unwilling to follow that link and read the information presented (and follow the citations to the primary research), I have attached two figures which may be of interests.

The first one shows variations in atmospheric CO₂ concentration for the past 400 kya. The glacial/interglacial range is obvious. The anthropogenic increase in the past two hundred years is also obvious, and far in excess of natural cycles (despite your unsupported assertion).

The second figure shows year-on-year data from the Vostok ice core with the clear and unambigous correlation between CO₂ concentration and temperature.

The link does put things in perspective about the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the natural cycles, but greenhouse gases are not the only natural cycle that affects the Earth's temperature, there is also sunspot cycles, slight variations in Earth's orbit, etc.

Please ignore the link in my previous comment. I did not realize that it would redirect you to a subscription login for Physics Today. Here, instead, is a PDF of the article.

Thanks for the PDF, that appears to be evidence against my solar variations theory. You have provided enough evidence to convince me, but I still have my own unfounded doubts that I have to work through to be full convinced.

Great! Empty assertions (mine or anyone else's) aren't evidence. If you've got doubts, try to put them in concrete terms -- what is it that you think isn't correct? what data do you need? -- and then do some research. The Wikipedia article on climate change has good citations to follows. Google Scholar is a search engine for primary research articles.

My main prejudice you may say originated from how unimpressed I was by An Inconvenient Truth, I could not stand that movie or the man who made it. But I am slowly working through my doubts and convincing myself. Ive never used Google Scholar before, I assume its good because it is a Google product but have you had good experience with it?

Yes, I use Google Scholar frequently, since I'm a practicing, professional scientist. It uses the same search interface as Google, but the search results are limited to peer-reviewed journal publications and the "official" preprint archives for scientific fields.

That is nice, I will have to use that more often, Thanks for the tip. What sort of science do you do?

Deja vu!

???

Very few people bother to actually look at another user's profile before asking simple questions about them. Adrian monk is merely noting that you're the Nth person (where N is large) to ask me that same question :-)

Okay, I don't know why but I feel weird when I look at people user profiles, not trying to make an excuse, however.

Yeah, I had this EXACT conversation with you. State a dumb wrong "fact", get corrected, get mad, slowly realize how very right you are, finally ask in awe where you work. :D

Ya, I know what you mean, went to Caltech and working at Stanford, that is impressive. What was you "fact"?

I think I said gravitons were only believed in by crazies. XD

Okay : )

See my http://www.instructables.com/member/kelseymh/. I'm an experimental high-energy (particle) physicist at SLAC. My current research area is rare decays of B mesons, in particular, charmless semileptonic decays.

I'm starting to participate in ATLAS at the LHC, starting with software development for "background overlay validation" of the simulation code.

Yes, it is a good sign that you called it a prejudice ( ^{_{An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts}} ) as it is apparant that such is rampant on both sides of the issue; that is, the main population either believes it or does not, without any evidence.
However, that fact that there is evidence to research gives one the option of either believing or understanding. Most of the answers given here have demonstrated that no one involved in this discussion just beleves in it, but has researched the evidences _{this doesn't mean you should not, by a long shot....I personally encourage people to question me and do the research.}

You are right.

As you said:
the main population either believes it or does not, without any evidence.

The majority believe this theory is an indisputable fact because of the relentless indoctrination by the mainstream media.

The global warming theory, as presented by politicians and the mainstream media, has never been about Objective Science. Any opposition to this issue is ridiculed and laughed at by the media and some people in this forum. It has always been about politics and power, not science. For some, the indoctrination by the media is so complete that they can not admit of even the possibility that they have been duped.

Sadly, they have doomed themselves and their children to becoming tax-slaves to greedy politicians and bumbling bureaucrats for the rest of their lives.

Clearly you haven't adequately read or understood any of the discussion going on.

You are either inadvertently or deliberately ignoring the multiple postings from multiple participants, with references to scientific policy summaries and to original research.

You are either inadvertently or deliberately suppressing the vast array of primary research results which are freely available to anyone with the ability to type a search into Google Scholar and the intelligence to read them and ask questions.

You are either inadvertently or deliberately using scare tactics and ad hominem arguments rather than presenting any kind of objective evidence in support of your position.

I think the scientific process is very useful, but I refuse to worship it as if it were a religion. I prefer to revere saints (Buddha, Jesus, Mohammad) rather than scientists, as the highest form of human consciousness.

There's the problem right there.

I'm sorry, but how on earth could I suppress:
the vast array of primary research results.

I have read all your links and I have thought about them. I really do care about what is true and what is not.

As an amateur scientist, I have great respect for anyone willing to do the hard effort it takes to do any kind of research, scientific or otherwise. Including you. But it is exactly that. It is research. The results of such research are not facts and they are not the truth. Many theories are routinely replaced by better theories next week or next year or next decade.

If you want to worship your version of science as if it were infallible and have the dogmatic belief that it can predict the future fifty years in advance, that is your choice. I will not go there. My common sense will not allow it. In my lifetime I have seen too many theories vaporize into thin air, to be replaced by newer, vaporous theories. I will not plan my life or live my life, based on your unproven theories, no matter how much you believe in them.

I think the scientific process is very useful, but I refuse to worship it as if it were a religion. I prefer to revere saints (Buddha, Jesus, Mohammad) rather than scientists, as the highest form of human consciousness.

The people who are on the side of the global warming theory are the ones using relentless indoctrination and scare tactics.

Your so called scientific evidence is not objective, it is circumstantial and biased. And it will be replaced by new evidence, next week or next year or next decade.

One definition of circumstantial is: Of, relating to, or dependent on circumstances.

I agree with the majority of people becoming tax slaves, most people have no idea what they are doing when the vote.

The global warming theory, as presented by politicians and the mainstream media, has never been about Objective Science.

But that is the problem NONE of us here are promoting anything that is simply "media motivated" but rock solid scientific evidences have been presented. You may choose to ignore that, for what you believe, for whatever reasons you may have, just because the media seem to agree, but that is not a very scientific way to go about researching a subject, nor is it very logical.

Not believing is ok, but to ignore all the facts presented, for what a fringe minority wishes to believe is nothing short of similar beliefs in a flat earth, or the staging of the Lunar landings.

The majority believe this theory

One last note, the majority of those that do not understand that global warming is indeed fact, believe so, because they have not done the proper research into the matter.

Did you bother to look at the second plot? The correlation between temperature and CO₂ is clear and unmistakable, even to an eye covered with ideological blinders. You can estimate the net effect of all of your other alleged drivers, simply by subtracting the blue and green plots and looking at the residuals.

You could also do a little bit of searching to find out what the primary researchers have found about those other drivers -- they're a few percent effect compared to CO₂ and other "greenhouse" gases.

Humankind is causing global warming? Where is the scientific evidence?

Lots of it has been presented here and elsewhere. As most are saying, "there is no doubt that the changes are occurring, the doubt comes in as to how much we influence it, by our reckless activities."

Sadly, it is only logical that quite a few thousand years of creating poisons in the atmosphere (most of them, in the last 100 or so years), waterways, and ground, would end up having a profound effect on our little planet.....this is not open space, where the area is limitless, this is very limited space. One or two more doublings of population would be impossible to handle, much less the waste put out by such a doubling.

Goodhart, I am disappointed. You are a smart guy. Why do you let most who are saying dictate to you what you should think or feel? In hitler (the small h is intentional) Germany most were saying that Jewish people were inferior and should be eliminated. Most were wrong. We all know how that turned out.

Please give me some links to what has convinced you global warming is occurring.

Please give me some links to what has convinced you global warming is man made.

Respectfully,

Mikey77

Since you seem to have trouble with PDFs, try this link.

It is a reasonably up-to-date summary of the state of climate change, including newer updates, and a list of the common "reasons" for not accepting global warming is real, or not accepting that humans cause it, or for ducking out of the responsibility of doing something about it.

Thanks for the link.

As I have had a subscription to New Scientist for the last four years, I have already read their opinion on global warming. I enjoy the magazine immensely, even though the editors are unabashed liberals and socialists. Their solution to everything is always higher taxes on Americans. They believe the government and bureaucrats and scientists are always smarter than the average person and that therefore gives them the right to confiscate more and more of the average workers hard earned money for their agenda. Fairly often though, they screw up and the truth slips through as somewhat unbiased scientific reporting.

My only problem with liberal bias in the media like New Scientist, ABC, BBC, CBS, NBC, NPR, MSNBC, CNN, NBC, CBS, Reuters, Newsweak, and Time magazine is that they pretend to be objective reporters of the news. That is a lie. They are not even close to being objective.

From your link:
Most modelers accept that despite constant improvements over more than half a century, there are problems. They acknowledge, for instance, that one of the largest uncertainties in their models is how clouds will respond to climate change. Their predictions, which they prefer to call scenarios, usually come with generous error bars.

No scientist alive can predict how much cloud cover there will be in the next 50 years. With enough cloud cover, the earth could cool by more than 2 degrees.

You, as a science teacher, no doubt know that science reduces reality. It reduces it to something significantly smaller than what it is. Into small formulas and algorithms. With theories and algorithms REALITY is often reduced to something our small minds can barely comprehend. Global warming scientists are trying to fit the ocean into a paper cup so that it will not overwhelm their puny supercomputers. Their data measurements of temperatures are woefully incomplete. In my opinion, that is not good enough and I refuse to guide my life by it.

You and the other global warming proponents that are commenting here have so far refused to address the several important points that I have tried to make.

1. If you cannot predict for next week small areas of weather that are to large to computer model successfully, (i.e. predict local weather) how can you add up a few billion of these unpredictable areas of weather all over the world (climate) and predict their total and exponentially more complex interactions in 50 years? No one has ever done it and you and others have provided no evidence that it can be done.

2. How can the current computer models treat cloud cover, the earths magnetic field, the suns magnetic field, the suns intensity which varies, volcanic action, the heat from the crust of the earth, the heat from underwater volcanos, cosmic rays, and the tons of meteorites and meteoroids that hit the earth every day as a constant? They are all obviously variables which by their very nature vary with time and cannot be predicted reliably from the recent past.

3. How do you know that the current average temperature (which I believe we have not accurately measured) is the the best possible temperature for the planet earth and its future inhabitants? It has gone up and down in the past few million years. Why would it not continue to do so with or without humans?

Here is some interesting information from New Scientist, June 21-27, 2008.
And I quote:

The conclusion was extraordinary and inescapable: Antarctica was once warm and forested..... During this time when dinosaurs roamed the almost subtropical forest of an ice-free Antarctic, conditions on the other side of the planet were even more remarkable: the Arctic Ocean was a gigantic freshwater lake infested with crocodile-like reptile.

More evidence of global warming in the past that had nothing to do with humans.

Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration of this issue.

I presume that "respectfully" was meant as a joke, right?

irrespective of intent is the clear message of the comment though, right? ;-)

One hopes. What an utter lack of tact and decency.

a sort of distorted and veiled character assassination attempt.

cloaked as it was ;-)

Putting any comments about climate change to the side for a second, you do realize that by bringing Hitler into the mix in your second comment you've pretty much null and voided your argument, right? It's a trump card that blows up in your face.

I am disappointed. You have re-edited your original comment. No on else is allowed to do that except for you. In this comment you originally said that I had shot myself in the foot with the hitler comment. Now you have changed it. You have also edited out one of my comments. Censorship is something I have come to expect from Liberals who cannot stand to have their point of view challenged. I have come to close to the truth, so to win the debate, you have to be devious and unfair. Most likely-- you will edit this out.

That is a baseless and outrageous claim. Our admins may be many things, but power abusing and devious they are not.

I would like to say for posterity that having read this user's and fungus's comments right after they were posted, I can testify to all interested onlookers reading this thread that absolutely no censorship has been excercised. This user is certainly misremembering and possibly being dilberately misleading.
Fungus amungus said no such thing about shooting himself in the foot, and he hasn't edited out any of mikey77's comments.

You haven't even come close to "winning" anything. You've made unsupported and unsubstantiated assertions, brought in specious and hyperbolic analogies designed (presumably with malicious intent) to offend and inflame, and have blithely ignored any and all supporting data which disagrees with your ideology. Now you make baseless and incorrect accusations against those who disagree with you.

I'm disappointed that you remember something that wasn't there. I can't edit my own or anyone else's comments. All that can happen is a comment be removed. I haven't removed any of your comments either. I'm curious as to where this "devious and unfair" stuff is coming from. I've been straightforward with my comments. And I enjoy my point of view being challenged. It's boring otherwise.

Every analogy has its limits. But the hitler movement has a few similarities to the current global warming propaganda that might be worth mentioning. 1- The majority are not always right, as in hitler Germany. The consensus was that Jewish people were inferior and should be removed. 2- A large part of hitlers success was the result of indoctrination. He owned the media and the media repeated day after day, over and over and over and over, what he wanted the German people to believe. 3-The solution to the problem (Jewish people or evil corporations or global warming) is always something that by some strange coincidence gives more power to the people proposing the solution. The whole global warming thing is not about saving the planet. We are not smart enough or powerful enough to do that. Look at the people who are pushing this, and at every turn they are using this issue to get more power over you and me. Strangely, their only solution is always higher taxes and more socialism.

The similarities are weak. 1 - This is a bit of a no-brainer. Bringing up Hitler is just a melodramatic way of making this point. 2 - Good point. Absolutely no relevance to modern American media, but historically interesting. 3 - Not a big surprise that the people proposing a solution would have an interesting in implementing that solution. On a smaller scale, if your front yard is a mess I hope you'd be willing to empower yourself to clean it up. 4 - The planet will keep on spinning with or without us. The issue is whether the conditions will still be good to support the life as we know it. To ignore looking at what is going on and what can be done to make it better would be the most foolish act of all. 5 - I have yet to meet these people you are scared of. Who are they? Most of the reports I've seen on the issue are from concerned scientists. And the Hitler thing. You really should give it up.

How can point 2 be a good point but have no relevance to modern American media? Listen to NPR or CBS news or read Newsweek. They present the global warming theory not as a theory but as an indisputable fact and characterize anyone who would dare to question it as some kind of idiot. The scientists who disagree with it are not generally interviewed or quoted. They are usually not even mentioned. On top of that, they repeat the same ideas on global warming over and over and over and over. They do not merely state it a few times and then allow the commonsense of people to assess it. The modern American media inundates you relentlessly with the same ideas over and over and over and after you hear those ideas almost word for word repeated endlessly on the radio and TV and magazines and books and movies, well, many people start to believe them. Repeating ideas over and over and over without giving reasonable proof is called indoctrination. Hitler was good at it and the modern American media are brilliant at it. 4-How is raising the temperature (if it happens) in fifty years by a couple of degrees going to make it impossible to support life as we know it? People, plants, and animals adapt-it is called evolution. And how do YOU know that the average temperature today is the ideal temperature for the planet earth? According to science, It has gone up and down in the last few million years and will no doubt continue to swing like a pendulum and be different in the future.

OK, back to #2 if you insist. Who owns the media? What one person owns and controls all of it? That's right, nobody. You cite three news sources out of hundreds. There are other outlets that cast doubt on the issue. This is not an issue being indoctrinated on the population. Also, for those who want to learn more there are plenty of places to look for information. The only reason to bring up Hitler is because you, as a writer, wanted him there even if he didn't fit. Might want to look up the definition of "theory" as others have asked you to. You're repeating your misunderstanding there. I said "the life as we know it." This means that what we are used to. Also, creatures can adapt to changes, but many of these changes happen over large periods of time. Short changes are much more of a shock to the system.