Not too long ago, I was referred to in an unflattering way by Al Gore ( et al ):
…the people who still say that global warming isn’t real are actually in the same boat with the flat earth society. They get together and party on Saturday nights …

CNN is reporting this:
Hurricanes over the past 5,000 years appear to have been controlled more by El Nino and an African monsoon than warm sea surface temperatures, such as those caused by global warming, researchers said Wednesday.
The study, publish…

“If I’m wrong, what have we got to lose? We develop more efficient ways of using energy. We develop means of generating electricity that do not use fossil fules (or at least, reduce the use of fossil fuels….”, and so on.

I feel like a lot of environmentalists jump on the global warming bandwagon because it seeks the same end result they do: less pollution, cleaner forms of energy, worldwide conservation, recycling. Getting behind global warming and then saying that “at least we did the world some other kind of good” if it turns out to be false is a cop-out. Stick with your beliefs for the right reason, and don’t endorse something you aren’t fully educated in. I’m not necessarily accusing Nigel of that, but that argument is word for word what I hear from environmentalists with no scientific background.

You accused me of using the “Only a theory” argument that is used by the opponents of evolution. I want to show you why that’s not true.

For something to be deemed a theory, it must satisfy two criteria.

1. It must provide a working model that explains and fits observable facts.

2. It must be able to make testable predictions about future events.

Some things which fall into this category are helio-centrism, continental drift, and, yes, evolution. Does that make these ideas any less true? Not at all.

But does global warming (the idea that humans are causing an increase in the average surface temperature of the Earth) fit the above criteria? No. As of the time of this writing, there are no climate models which can make reliable predictions about the future state of the climate. Thus, by strict scientific definitions, global warming isn’t a theory, it’s a hypothesis. It’s a proposed way of looking at and describing climate change. For global warming to be deemed a theory, it must move into the realm of predictions. That’s what defines a scientific theory; the ability to make future predictions.

It doesn’t matter how much evidence is present, if global warming doesn’t make predictions, it’s not a theory. There are strong theories like helio-centrism and evolution. But these theories are accepted by the scientific community because of their predictive power, not because of their preponderance of evidence.

Now I believe that global warming will someday make the step from hypothesis to theory, but not in its current form. Just like evolution, new global warming theories will have to be tried, modified, and discarded until the truth emerges. But until that time comes, the “just a theory” argument is specious because global warming is not a theory.

At least not yet. . .

I actually hope there is someone who believes that Rachel Carson was an accurate and objective researcher, and who can help me learn about the stuff on JunkScience that seems to refute her work… ack.!
Blessed Be, Missy

For you married guys, does this sound familiar? You’ll never understand the mood swings, you never seem to win any arguments, and you get scolded all the time because whatever it us, is not up to her standards. To stay married to her, you must simply adapt and accept the fact that she is an “unclimable mountain” of irrational reason and emotion.

We can’t fight mother nature folks, we must focus on how to adapt to her changes. Reducing man-made greenhouse emissions is futile. You’ll just end up “sleeping on the couch”.

Right now, I think that theory has more weight than what are scientists are currently coming up with.

Phil Plait….GREAT WEBSITE!!!!!