C'mon...remember chemistry? Physics? You prove something by disproving the opposite. It's not ALL of scientific theory, but it is a good part of it.

 

It is one of many, many elements contained in scientific method.

It is one of many, many elements contained in scientific method.

 

 

From your post, I infer you feel I have no knowledge of scientific theory, how it is derrived, etc?

From your post, I infer you feel I have no knowledge of scientific theory, how it is derrived, etc?

 

I'm sure you have as much as I do. I was merely following up on your assertion that you were convinced it was sound "science" way back when you believe it was "proven" by "disproving" other models. You'd make a great juror for me, though!:thumb:

I'm sure you have as much as I do. I was merely following up on your assertion that you were convinced it was sound "science" way back when you believe it was "proven" by "disproving" other models. You'd make a great juror for me, though!:thumb:

 

 

I'm pretty sure (but not positive) that you just insulted me. :lol:

 

I was, and am, convinced that the theorists who subscribe to global warming have sound evidence.

Follow it right to oil drillers, auto manufacturers, and big industry.

 

 

:thumb:

I'm pretty sure (but not positive) that you just insulted me. :lol:

 

I was, and am, convinced that the theorists who subscribe to global warming have sound evidence.

 

What type of tangible statistics and/or evidence would it take to convince you that they were mistaken?

 

What if the geo-orbit satellite photos showed a re-emergent ice pack in Greenland? Or that the estimated volume of the oceans had shrunk and not grown? Or that the worldwide temperature of the Earth had decreased for "X" number of years?

Oh, so they're the ones claiming that "global warming" is "man made".

Obviously, they're the one's financing the opposite view.

 

It's easy to malign the opposing side; but the truth is, there is money flowing on both sides of the issue.

Yes, I can agree there are credible sources on both sides.

 

But, I contend that erring on the side of caution is the prudent choice here. Ignoring something that is being debated, but could have such devestating impact on our earth, and our future generations is irresponsible.

You know what's really irresponsible to me? The scare the kids campaign some teachers use to brainwash schoolchildren about global warming. The students of one sixth grade class in paticular said they learned about global warming by reading 10 articles about it. None of the articles, however, was about the science of global warming. Naturally the articles were horrific stories of what will happen to us if we don't stop it NOW. They wrote The Heartland Institute describing what they had been taught about global warming, here are some excerpts:

 

“I think your fools for denying G.W. you know it could kill us all & you’re just adding to it. I want you to help stop G.W. not increase it.”

 

“We are going to tell you about global warming. I don’t care if you don’t want to read, but I’m making you read it you horrible people.”

 

“We feel that it is wrong what you are doing. We know that you know that global warming is NOT we repeat NOT a myth, And we think it is selfish that you would take money over yours and your peers lives.”

 

“We feel upset because you are making Global Warming worse instead of helping it. We know that almost half of the country knows that G.W. is a crisis. We know that you could help the environment with the $800,000 you have.”

 

“I do not think that what you are doing is right because you are telling people that global warming is not a crisis. If this is not a crisis, how come floods have occurred in asia, Mexico, and India. Plus, how can you explain why the glacier glaciers are melting. they can’t melt themselves, because they are in the coldest region in the world.”

 

“Air pollution shrinks fetus size, 31 states target global warming, World must fix Climate in 10 years-UNDP, National disasters have quadrupled in two decades, and Global Warming Denier Group funded by Big Oil Hosting Climate Change Denial conference.”

 

"Global warming means that if we don´t fix the climate, everything will be destroyed and we won´t be able to survive."

 

 

Shameful!

Obviously, they're the one's financing the opposite view.

 

It's easy to malign the opposing side; but the truth is, there is money flowing on both sides of the issue.

I'm not so sure of that BF. It's easier to get funding for a "catastrophic, world killing problem" than it is to prove it's not so.

Obviously, they're the one's financing the opposite view.

 

It's easy to malign the opposing side; but the truth is, there is money flowing on both sides of the issue.

I don't argue that. But it's the alamists that claim the science is "settled." They're also the ones calling the other side heretics, basically.

I don't argue that. But it's the alamists that claim the science is "settled." They're also the ones calling the other side heretics, basically.

You're only telling half the tale. It's the doubters that accuse the scientists on the global warming side of being money-grabbing frauds, and loonies, and many, many other names! They want to throw Al Gore out there because he's a "convenient" symbol to attack when they don't have any real argument that addresses the facts. The name-calling game (as you know) is definitely the domain of those who choose to ignore the problem.

I'm not so sure of that BF. It's easier to get funding for a "catastrophic, world killing problem" than it is to prove it's not so.

I have no doubt that big industry is doing it's part to "debunk" the science. It's no different than the money they invest in lobbying lawmakers.

You're only telling half the tale. It's the doubters that accuse the scientists on the global warming side of being money-grabbing frauds, and loonies, and many, many other names! They want to throw Al Gore out there because he's a "convenient" symbol to attack when they don't have any real argument that addresses the facts. The name-calling game (as you know) is definitely the domain of those who choose to ignore the problem.

BF, I've never heard more name calling than from the pro-warming side. You accuse those that slam Gore as not having a real argument. I have tons of articles, videos and other resources to refute your claim. Anytime, anywhere, just let me know. :thumb:

I've only called Gore a money-grabbing fraud and loony, and deservedly so.

I have no doubt that big industry is doing it's part to "debunk" the science. It's no different than the money they invest in lobbying lawmakers.

What about the scientists that believed in man made global warming and changed their minds when they found evidence refuting it?

What about the scientists that believed in man made global warming and changed their minds when they found evidence refuting it?

What about those that didn't?