Oh really? "People" don't understand that you say. Well, here's something you don't appear to understand according to your own Wikipedia definition there, Professor.

According to your definition Human Caused Global Warming in the globally catastrophic way it is most often implied is not a theory. It's a hypothesis.

Wanna know why? It's that inconvenient word - "falsifiable.

Prove me wrong. Tell me what would falsify the Catastrophic Human Caused Global Warming hypothesis. Ten years of no warming? Fifteen? It's happened and it didn't work. Twenty then? Thirty? No. They'd just move the goal posts, as they always do every time a tenet of the hypothesis such as climate fingerprints, or proposed essential warming at both poles, or faulty models are shown to be false. If you can't falsify it, it's not a theory. It's a hypothesis.

That's if you want to get technical. Are you sure you want to do that?

No. I'm talking about what the popular media chooses to emphasis and put into print. Are you pretending you know the issue from both sides?

Oh brother...

I'm guessing you aren't happy with NASA's data since it doesn't support your view so you need to find a way to discount it.

There very few scientists contradicting the basic theory that human activities influence climate change.

Over the last 15 years CO2 rises dramatically, yet global climate is not getting warmer. It remains statistically static. That's not supposed to happen. No problem for the nintendo guys though, they'll just write another model, and create another hypothesis.[/QUOTE]

Again - global climate is effected by more than just CO2 as was pointed out in the article explaining why some areas get colder. It also takes time for small temperature changes to have effect when you consider there are so many variables. According to NOAA, the average increase over all land and ocean surfaces,is roughly 1.33°F over the last century. That can be enough to make the difference between freezing and thawing especially when you consider there are likely to be stronger regional variations.

And yes, as new data becomes available I would hope they would create or modify their hypothesis and theories - that's the nature of science. The only thing skeptics have been able to offer is "holes" in theory - it doesn't explain this, or why doesn't this detail behave that way? They offer little the way of actual research proving a theory wrong or offering alternatives.

__________________

DISCLAIMER: Extreme amounts of sarcasm can possibly result in inflammatory situations. Not responsible for keyboard violence, spittle on the monitor, irrational responses mistaken for momentary brilliance, one-sided rages against hypocrisy or individual members or unintended consequences such as poor personal hygiene and bad spelling. Please fasten your seatbelts and put your trays in an upright position.

Only a moron would be happy with stuff like thrice arrested activist, and NASA/GISS head James Hansen's temperature record massaging, and laughable, proven incorrect predictions, or Obama's use of NASA to congratulate Muslims on their non-existent scientific contributions to it, or the steadily more obvious use of it's websites for Progaganda



There are thousands who disagree with different sections of the Catastrophic Human Caused Global Warming hypothesis according to stuff like the Oregon petition. If you disagree with that one Morano has a list of links to over a thousand offering disagreements. If you disagree with that one, I'll still say many. Prove me wrong. Even if you could (and you can't), science is not a measure of who's political party can organize the most scientists. It's about the facts. If you have those produce them. I've yet to see more than controversial claims of facts.

BTW you do not have to disagree with the idea humans can influence climate to disagree with the idea of Catastrophic human caused global warming. That's another reason they want to change the name all the time.


The article explained nothing. It only offered another hypothesis, to excuse a previously failed one.

.07 degrees celsius of warming in not unheard of, and man survives. Actually he thrives. Historically climate warms and cools. It got warmer following the little ice age. At present it appears to have peaked. To get to the catastrophic levels of warming you have to postulate another hypothesis of positive feedback (look it up) - something rarely seen in the natural world, and something there is no hard, data-based, evidence of in climate.

No. I didn't say that. The question originally asked was why aren't cooling events reported in the media. You - yourself - are a frequent enough critic of the media when they sensationalize and distort YOUR pet peeves yet you stop short when it happens with climate change?

Woah - back up a moment buckaroo and quit putting words in my mouth (yes, I realize it's your favorite tactic).

I'm not talking about a theory of "global catastrophy". That is projecting into the future and there may not be enough data to be that accurate. Global change? Likely. Catastrophe for some areas? Likely. For example rising sea-levels drowning low lying areas. (which by the way was one of the conerns from the OP and what I specifically commented on).

When I'm talking about a climate change as a theory - it is that human activity is affecting global climate.

To show it could be "falsifiable" is not a matter of proving it false. It is whether we can imagine some phenomenon that would disprove the hypothesis.

Falsifiability says nothing of whether the hypothesis is actually false. Asking the question about whether or not a hypothesis is falsifiable is nothing more than determining whether that hypothesis is a question for which science can offer any answer at all by methods of scientific inquiry.

So...let's look at the theory that human activities are effecting global climate. How would I go about disproving it? I could observe one defined geographical area and see whether human activity has impacted that region and compare it to historical data. I'm not a climate scientist and don't pretend to be.


What ever you want.

__________________

DISCLAIMER: Extreme amounts of sarcasm can possibly result in inflammatory situations. Not responsible for keyboard violence, spittle on the monitor, irrational responses mistaken for momentary brilliance, one-sided rages against hypocrisy or individual members or unintended consequences such as poor personal hygiene and bad spelling. Please fasten your seatbelts and put your trays in an upright position.

Only a moron employs such fallacious tactics as red herrings and poisoning the well.

That's kind of funny the way you put it. They disagree with different sections - in other words, I suspect for many - they disagree with certain details. That's no surprise. Very few disagree with theory that human activities are causing climate change. The disagreement is largely to what extent it will effect us on a global level.

I'm not arguing for or against a "catastrophic" version of the theory - my argument has been that human activity is causing climate change.

The idea of whether or not it is catastrophic is open to debate because there are many factors and variables from weather pattern changes and sea level rising to such seemingly minute things as a few degrees of temperature change allowing an insect that might normally die down in the winter to survive in greater numbers and decimate huge tracts of forest or new disease vectors emerging in areas that they hadn't previously inhabited. What is "catastrophic" is hard to be sure of and what might be catastrophic in one region might be good in another (warm weather opening up longer growing seasons in certain latitudes for example).

Humans survive. But - thriving depends on where you are. The "Little Iceage" is not a conclusively documented event and the so-called warming that followed (if you mean the Medievil Warming Period)as a global event is also poorly supported by evidence or through misinterpretation of the available evidence.

__________________

DISCLAIMER: Extreme amounts of sarcasm can possibly result in inflammatory situations. Not responsible for keyboard violence, spittle on the monitor, irrational responses mistaken for momentary brilliance, one-sided rages against hypocrisy or individual members or unintended consequences such as poor personal hygiene and bad spelling. Please fasten your seatbelts and put your trays in an upright position.

Human activities do affect climate, at least as you say regionally. It's measurable, predictable, and falsifiable in stuff like the urban heat island effect. It meets the criteria of the scientific method.

To the extent it can be measured there's no worry of global catastrophe. Human influence can warm slightly with added greenhouse gas, or cool with particles causing sun blockage. You can measure the effects. Some of it qualifies as actual pollution, and should be dealt with.

However without a postulation of catastrophe it's little more than interesting phenomena requiring study. We should maybe be shaking our fingers a bit at the Chinese and Indians over the pollution thing - smog clouds and such. If you are not postulating global catastrophe from non-pollutants like CO2 though, then what's the problem? There is nothing requiring the massive outflows of cash, or changing of political structures proposed by the proponents of the catastrophic global warming hypothesis, or it's descendants (ie. climate disruption).

So someone else is saying the same thing as me, great!

__________________
"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation... One is by sword... The other is by debt."

John Adams 1826