Global Warming is over.

[cale]

global warming is a theory partner.

Oh god not another one of you. "But it's just a theory!", way to highlight your scientific ignorance by thinking that is a valid argument against the theory in question.

[naplesE30]

Peer review means a panel of scientists funded by the same organizations with similar agendas.

[gwb72tii]

Peer review means a panel of scientists funded by the same organizations with similar agendas.

now that's funny

[cale]

Peer review means a panel of scientists funded by the same organizations with similar agendas.

Thanks for reinforcing my last comment.

[Rustyduktape]

but guys, there are three factors to sustainability; society, economy and the environment. Regardless of whether or not global warming is real, what will happen if we continue to live our lives focused on only the economy and society? Whether or not global warming is real, we live on an island, which has finite resources. I mean, unless we start capturing asteroids and shit to mine their minerals, which is cool as fuck, we have to use what we have here most efficiently. Now I'm not going to champion peak oil and shit like that, but doesn't it just make sense to try to create a symbiotic relationship with your environment to ensure the longest existence?

[herbivor]

global warming is a theory partner.

Global warming is as much a theory as Evolution. I think you may be confused what scientific theories are. They are a description of facts, not speculation or hypothesis.

[jrobie79]

whats it like for all you AGW folks to live in such fear?

[naplesE30]

A scientific theory can be thought of as a model of reality. According to Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time, "a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model which contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations". He goes on to state, "any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation which disagrees with the predictions of the theory". The "unprovable but falsifiable" nature of theories is a consequence of the necessity of using inductive logic.

[cale]

whats it like for all you AGW folks to live in such fear?

I could just as easily spin that and ask how comforting your life of denial is, oh wait....I don't try to use my ignorance as a tool to argue a topic I don't fully understand or educated in. "agw can't be right because it doesn't make sense to me"

[naplesE30]

Yet you argue in support of a topic that scientists admit they don't even understand,nor can prove. You are so wise. I am in awe of your nobility.

[jrobie79]

its not really denial tho...b/c i really don't give a shit about it at all. There is plenty of evidence that backs up my thinking, so again, its not really denial, I enjoy my life, I know where I stand, and why I stand there and thats good enough for me. In the end it doesn't matter if you agree with me or not, has NO EFFECT on me. Will I try to argue for my point yes, am I advocating for the demise of all those who have opposing views? of course not, I just don't agree with you.

[tjts1]

Another blow to stupidism... I mean global-warming denial.

Rising levels of carbon dioxide drove much of the global warming that thawed Earth at the end of the last ice age.
The result stands in contrast to previous studies that showed temperatures rising ahead of increases in atmospheric CO2 levels. This has led some skeptics of human-triggered global warming to argue that if warming temperatures came first, CO2 wasn't an important factor then and so can't be as significant a factor today as most climate scientists calculate it to be.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2012/0405/Ice-age-study-delivers-blow-to-global-warming-skeptics

Have fun with that boys.

[turge]

Lol @ this thread. Global warming is a joke of a theory considering the math used to calculated it is rigged. I'll have to find the documentary on it, but true story.

Sent from my HTC ThunderBolt using Tapatalk

[herbivor]

Lol @ this thread. Global warming is a joke of a theory considering the math used to calculated it is rigged. I'll have to find the documentary on it, but true story.

Sent from my HTC ThunderBolt using Tapatalk

Hi, welcome to the thread. This must be your first post, because it looks like you just skipped to the end without reading the discussion...not that that surprises me since you probably skipped past the "math" you criticize to come to the conclusion you want to believe anyway.

Good posts tjts1, I read that too last night but since it didn't come from a random conservative blog I didn't think we were allowed to post it.

[turge]

TLDR. But the math was rigged on top of the fact that the scientists have said that they don't know what said "changes" would do. You have to understand that the Earth has a natural climate cycle and although we do play a small part in emissions, it's not substantial enough to cause a huge shift in temperature.