Global Warming is over.

[cale]

And your argument is? Honestly that was a worthless contribution to this thread, at least gramps provides lawls. Please show me where anyone in this thread has claimed AGW to be a law.

[gwb72tii]

intellectual dishonesty at it's finest. why even bother "participating" in these conversations if this is all you're going to say?

the point is, again, and i'll type slowly so even you can understand

all science is conjecture, hytpothesis. its is theory now until we discover otherwise.

[gwb72tii]

And your argument is? Honestly that was a worthless contribution to this thread, at least gramps provides lawls. Please show me where anyone in this thread has claimed AGW to be a law.

cale, cale, cale

are you only three yrs old with a limited attention span and memory?
do you not read what your bro herb has to say?

[cale]

all science is conjecture, hytpothesis. its is theory now until we discover otherwise.

I'll type it out again too, you're wrong as to defining scientific theories. You're entitled to your own misunderstandings, not your own definitions. Please refer to my first link for more on the definitions champ, maybe after arguing your ignorance 3 or 4 times you'll be tired out and ready to educate yourself.

Your torch is shining bright as ever

cale, cale, cale

are you only three yrs old with a limited attention span and memory?
do you not read what your bro herb has to say?

4 1/2, and he made mention of someone claiming it to be law which no one as far as I have seen has attempted to do. If I read over such a claim, please highlight it for me. Otherwise his post is meaningless as it does not apply to anything which has been said.

.

[herbivor]

I feel we go over this definition of scientific theory, hypothesis, and laws every time we talk about evolution, and now GW. It really goes to show you who paid attention in science class and who didn't. Even still, a quick glance at Wikipedia should bring everybody up to speed so we're all on the same page, but if the deniers can't even agree on the stated definition of scientific theory, there really is no hope in having a rational argument.

[BraveUlysses]

but if the deniers can't even agree on the stated definition of scientific theory, there really is no hope in having a rational argument.

It's part of making an intellectually dishonest argument which should show you that some people really aren't worth the time and effort to discuss things.

[gwb72tii]

March 28, 2012
The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001
Dear Charlie,
We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.
The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.
As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.
For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.
Thank you for considering this request.


Sincerely,

See a full list of the signatures at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/1...limate-models/

[gwb72tii]

It's part of making an intellectually dishonest argument which should show you that some people really aren't worth the time and effort to discuss things.

not true my friend
something made up of hypotheses is/are hypothetical also.

as you define it, a group of hypotheses become theory when available evidence supports the hypotheses, correct? that does not make the hypotheses any less hypothetical, it only means the hypotheses have not been contradicted at this time by alternate hypotheses or evidence, no? so a group of hypotheses that happen to be supported by current evidence, called a theory, are no longer hypothetical? is that what you're saying?

[z31maniac]

not true my friend
something made up of hypotheses is/are hypothetical also.

as you define it, a group of hypotheses become theory when available evidence supports the hypotheses, correct? that does not make the hypotheses any less hypothetical, it only means the hypotheses have not been contradicted at this time by alternate hypotheses or evidence, no? so a group of hypotheses that happen to be supported by current evidence, called a theory, are no longer hypothetical? is that what you're saying?

You are taking pedantry to an entirely new level.

[herbivor]

March 28, 2012
The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001
Dear Charlie,
We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.
The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.
As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.
For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.
Thank you for considering this request.


Sincerely,

See a full list of the signatures at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/1...limate-models/

Was this the list of bogus signatures of scientists that many of the scientists never knew had their signatures on and then upon finding out they adamantly requested to have their names retracted? Or was that the petition to the IPCC? I can't remember. IIRC only a handful of the thousands of signatures were actually real. The rest were bogus. Anyway, I'm not sure what the letter has to do with the scientific evidence but if that's what you rely on to support your beliefs, it's pretty damn weak.

[tjts1]

See a full list of the signatures at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/1...limate-models/

the list is conjecture, hytpothesis. its is theory now until you prove otherwise.

[herbivor]

the list is conjecture, hytpothesis. its is theory now until you prove otherwise.

Zing!!

[gwb72tii]

Was this the list of bogus signatures of scientists that many of the scientists never knew had their signatures on and then upon finding out they adamantly requested to have their names retracted? Or was that the petition to the IPCC? I can't remember. IIRC only a handful of the thousands of signatures were actually real. The rest were bogus. Anyway, I'm not sure what the letter has to do with the scientific evidence but if that's what you rely on to support your beliefs, it's pretty damn weak.

no herb, just a few ordinary scientists smarter than you that disagree with you and your AGW brothers.
next time before doing the knee jerk response you might read the post and link

BTW - how many IPCC "scientists" had to threaten lawsuit against the UN to have their names removed before publication?

try google

[gwb72tii]

Was this the list of bogus signatures of scientists that many of the scientists never knew had their signatures on and then upon finding out they adamantly requested to have their names retracted? Or was that the petition to the IPCC? I can't remember. IIRC only a handful of the thousands of signatures were actually real. The rest were bogus. Anyway, I'm not sure what the letter has to do with the scientific evidence but if that's what you rely on to support your beliefs, it's pretty damn weak.

ok let's hypothesize that you're correct (cale, that means pretend for your info)
tell me your solution and why global warming is a bad thing
and you've yet to answer a simple question of why reducing annual CO2 emissions <1% will prevent GW

[tjts1]

ok let's hypothesize that you're correct (cale, that means pretend for your info)
tell me your solution and why global warming is a bad thing
and you've yet to answer a simple question of why reducing annual CO2 emissions <1% will prevent GW