Earth has cooled, researchers say

[Rockie]

Thankfully there are people with influence who do think about these things and countless other problems as well so that you don't have to. You can go back to sleep.

I was sleeping well, but then rolled over and realized that the drivel from these "influential" idiots has got the population whipped into a frenzy over climate change. Politicians, having no balls, will try to appease the population by implementing measures that will cost us money and do little for the environment. I hate being taxed to fund measures that will be totally ineffective at stopping climate change.

Saying that we can stop climate change is equivalent to saying that we could stop the ocean's tides if we all just put our minds (and government policy) into it. It is a ridiculous notion. We have no such level of control over the environment, nor will we ever.

The climate is in a permanent state of change, will always be in a state of change, and no amount of Prius drivers and compact fluorescent bulbs will change that.

PS: China is now halfway to bringing over 500 new coal-fired powerplants online this year alone. Think your compact fluorescents are going to do a damn thing now? Think again.

What you're not doing is making the distinction between natural climate change, which we cannot do anything about, and climate change caused by man made greenhouse gasses, which we can do something about. Your comments about China are well taken and they along with everyone else pose a huge threat. But since you guys seem to be all about credibility, wouldn't it be a little hypocritical to try influencing the China's without first cleaning up our own act?

[pontius]

Corporate Joe wrote....".Verbal diarrhea caused by mental cramps.."


You really have a way with words, Joe. Have you a journalistic background?
I think that phrase is great, I will use it myself when the opportunity arises, if that`s O.K.

[the_professor]

What you're not doing is making the distinction between natural climate change, which we cannot do anything about, and climate change caused by man made greenhouse gasses, which we can do something about. Your comments about China are well taken and they along with everyone else pose a huge threat. But since you guys seem to be all about credibility, wouldn't it be a little hypocritical to try influencing the China's without first cleaning up our own act?

Climate change caused by greenhouse gases is a theory that has not been proven. Therefore to even suggest that there is a difference between natural climate change and man-induced climate change is to make a distinction that is based on a theory, not fact. You make the statement as though man-induced climate change is a fact.

It is not a fact, it is a theory. A theory with lots of holes.

[Rockie]

There is a difference between scepticism and closed-mindedness. Scepticism is good because it makes people take very hard looks at things before launching off on ill-advised schemes. Closed-mindedness is bad because nothing is accepted until it knocks your head off, and maybe not even then. I have no idea at what point the "theory" will become fact in your mind, and it doesn't matter anyway.

[Spokes]

What you're not doing is making the distinction between natural climate change, which we cannot do anything about, and climate change caused by man made greenhouse gasses, which we can do something about. Your comments about China are well taken and they along with everyone else pose a huge threat. But since you guys seem to be all about credibility, wouldn't it be a little hypocritical to try influencing the China's without first cleaning up our own act?

Climate change caused by greenhouse gases is a theory that has not been proven. Therefore to even suggest that there is a difference between natural climate change and man-induced climate change is to make a distinction that is based on a theory, not fact. You make the statement as though man-induced climate change is a fact.

It is not a fact, it is a theory. A theory with lots of holes.

Sounds like someone does not know alot about the scientific method. All science is theories. They are not proven to be fact, they are proven to be false.

A good theory is one that can be tested through experiment (amoung other things). If the test is run and the predictions made by the theory come to pass then we have stronger support for the theory. Remember reletivity is also still a 'theory', but the very fact that GPS works means that we have strong trust in this theory.

If we test a theory, and its predictions do not come to pass in experiment, then we must abandon the theory, or modify it. This inspite of all the previous positive experiments (assumeing no errors were made). Newtons laws of motion were (are) widely used in space travel. There was always slight discrpeancies that were usually accounted for by cliaming inaccurate measurement. It was not until Einstiens theories that these small discrepancies were resolved.

On of the poorest arguments that are made by laypeople (and I am one myself) is that just because something is a 'theory' we should not trust it. Darwins theory of evolution cannot (as far as I know) be directly tested, but there is a large amount of natural observations that support the theory.

That being said, I still feel the theory of Global warming is weak. There is some (alot) of evidence that supports it, but there is too alot of evidence against. Who's right? who knows?

One thing I have noticed is that the Global Warming camp seems to think it significant that many scientists agree, and therefore consensus makes it right. The thing is, it is never told how many of these scientists are actually climate scientists, and how many specialize in some other natural discipline. I would take the word of one climatologist, over 100 biologists, on a climate matter.

The other thing I have noticed is that the Global warming camp seems to sensaitionalize cosequences to far beyond what most of the theories really predict. This strikes me as something that is done from a weak argument standpoint.

The last thing I noticed is that both sides sink very quickly to ad homonim attacks. Things would be much clearer if this stopped I think. Comparing someone who questions a theory (as science constantly should do) to the Nazi's is not a great thing.

my $.02

[Rockie]

Really good post.

[the_professor]

A good theory is one that can be tested through experiment (amoung other things). If the test is run and the predictions made by the theory come to pass then we have stronger support for the theory. Remember reletivity is also still a 'theory', but the very fact that GPS works means that we have strong trust in this theory.

If we test a theory, and its predictions do not come to pass in experiment, then we must abandon the theory, or modify it. This inspite of all the previous positive experiments (assumeing no errors were made).

Good post, but let's not be too quick to draw parallels between relativity and gravity and climate change. Climate change does not even enter the same chapter in terms of the ability to reproduce results based on the theory to date. And it never will in our lifetimes, nor those of our great-grandchildren.

That is a fact.

[Rockie]

Well Professor, you seem to have your mind made up. I refer you to my earlier post about the difference between scepticism and closed-mindedness.

[Spokes]

First, thanks.

Now,

No, not all theories can be tested by direct experimentation. You are correct there. Besides Climate change you can include plate techtonics and dinosaurs to think of two of the top of my head.

In these cases theories must be tested through observation of the natural world. I would guess the process is something like "If this is true, we should find that" If you find that then you have greater faith in this.

But, I feel myself rapidly getting in over my head here. This type of theory is not something I know alot about. I will stop here.