<p>kluge… “lemmings/chimps/puppies”… you’re reading at least parts of my posts, so would you mind giving this one, the one about the successful temperature predictions you’ve noted, a real try?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And, do you agree or disagree that a theory that isn’t falsifiable isn’t really a theory, but instead just a belief?</p>
<p>musicprnt:</p>
<p>Your points 1-5 make for fascinating reading but could you lay your hands (mouse pointer, really) on some of the source material for the conclusions you’ve come to? </p>
<p>(And it was “hoodoo”, not “hoopla” but that’s probably not that important.)</p>
<p>Musicprnt, great post#140.</p>
<p>I think the Laffer comparison isn’t appropriate because he never had the data to come to his conclusions, the data doesn’t support his conclusions, and Laffer has acknowledged thst cutting tax rates does not increase tax revenues. I think Laffer is a bs artist so I just had to mention this. </p>
<p>I would like to know the answer to this question. If the earth is 6,000 years old, how come oil is called a fossil fuel?</p>
<p>Catahoula, I never said global warming theory was “not falsifiable.” Not even anything close to that, actually. The fact that you felt a need to try to twist what I actually wrote to suggest that is kind of humorous. What I wrote was
Indeed, there have been many attempts to prove global warming theory false. It’s just that they haven’t succeeded in doing so. I feel pretty confident that if there really was a robust alternative explanation for the data, and a credible alternative analysis of what the effect of pumping ungodly amounts of carbon into the atmosphere really is, we’d have heard about it by now. Instead, deniers tout every minor reassessment of data as “proof” that the analysis is completely disproved. I don’t see that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well you can’t, can you, kluge? If you do, you’ve lost that little fig leaf of scientific modesty that is trying to cover a very expansive piece of real estate and that will never, never do.</p>
<p>Come to think of it, you can’t claim it’s “falsfiable” either, can you? Which explains why you won’t answer.</p>
<p>Why does this even matter? I think most reasonable people can agree on the importance of good stewardship of the earth and preservation of resources. Why fight about the why, when we will likely never really know, instead of building on what people do agree on? Could it be because for some people it’s about control, rather than stewardship?</p>
<p>Everything is “arguable”!!!</p>
<p>“Why does this even matter? I think most reasonable people can agree on the importance of good stewardship of the earth and preservation of resources.”</p>
<p>Sadly, perhaps, I think most reasonable people would NOT agree on the “relative” importance of good stewardship, if the tradeoff is in well-paying jobs, taxes, “opportunities” for their children, and corporate profits. etc. This is really the question. If I said to you, today, that the only way to ensure good stewardship of the earth would be unemployment for your kids for the next decade, would you take it? If not a decade, how about 8 years? 6 years? 4 years? 2 years?</p>
<p>Many of the scientists behind Al Gore would now argue that, where we ware now, that wouldn’t be enough.</p>
<p>Oh, sorry Catahoula, I didn’t realize you were riding the denier’s hobby-horse du jour. A non-falsifiable theory is something along the lines of: “Because God wanted that to happen.” You can’t disprove that theory because God, as a Supreme Being, can make anything happen - no rules apply. But global warming theory is science - it’s just complicated science. You could disprove many of the parts of the theory, and by doing so, require that the theory be abandoned or revised to address the new proof. </p>
<ol>
<li><p>You could disprove the part about the Earth actually getting warmer - that was the first stop on the denier’s agenda, until it got kind of obvious that, well, it was happening. So that didn’t pan out.</p></li>
<li><p>You could prove that CO2 doesn’t absorb and emit infrared radiation in the way the theory posits, but according to what I read, that’s seems to be true, too. </p></li>
<li><p>You could disprove the part about the stratosphere and above actually cooling as the surface gets warmer due to the greenhouse effect, like on Venus. But I hear that that’s happening too. Etc. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>But I don’t claim to be able to verify all the scientific details myself. I really have to take the word of the people who do, that they actually check that stuff, and actually analyze the data to see if it really matches up. Unlike you, I don’t presume that virtually every climate scientist in the world is simply ignoring data which actually conflicts with the theory - you know, so they can stay on that big fat “gravy train” you go on about. (I’m picturing a bunch of nerds in lab coats, spooning up caviar and slurping champagne, laughing all the way to the bank as they scheme about how to keep those five figures salaries rolling in after a mere 10 years in college - and, need I add, how to rub out anybody who squeals. [Climate</a> Science Postdoctoral Fellow Salary in Berkeley, CA | Indeed.com](<a href=“http://www.indeed.com/salary/q-Climate-Science-Postdoctoral-Fellow-l-Berkeley,-CA.html]Climate”>http://www.indeed.com/salary/q-Climate-Science-Postdoctoral-Fellow-l-Berkeley,-CA.html) :rolleyes:</p>
<p>In other words, global warming theory is just like every other scientific theory that deals with lots of variables - like evolution or relativity. You can never affirmatively prove that it’s true. All you can do is confirm that the different assumptions upon which it is based seem to reliably repeat themselves - apples keep falling down instead of up, etc. And you look for evidence which is irreconcilable with the predictions of the theory - I know the deniers keep on after that, but they don’t seem to be convincing many people who carefully review their claims.</p>
<p>Speaking of apples and gravity - Newton’s theory of gravity is now considered to have been disproved. It’s close enough for everyday purposes, but not exactly right. It’s still pretty handy. I’d ignore it at your peril if you’re doing anything involving ladders or rooftops. Because even though it’s been falsified as an absolute truth, it’s predictive qualities are pretty darned good. We may similarly find that some parts of global warming theory are a little off the mark as well. That’s science. But in making decisions about how to address the predictions of climate change science, I’m inclined to follow the ladder-Newton precedent, no matter how inconvenient it might be.</p>
<p>What scientists mini? I think there are still people who believe that if the oil cos., etc. took a longer outlook on profits, and invested in renewable technologies, climate change could be dealt with.</p>
<p>It’s been awhile, but there were a whole bunch of scientists that signed on to Gore’s movie, and the book, who argued that 2010 was essentially the deadline, and that the standard strategies, even if implemented afterwards, would neither be effective enough, nor geared up quickly enough, to make a significant (enough) difference.</p>
<p>But a decade-long global depression, starting soon, could likely do the trick, or at least get us on the right track. I doubt that “reasonable people” would agree on the relative importance of “good stewardship” if that’s what it meant.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, I’m actively trying to triple the global energy footprint of many of my friends.</p>
<p>The global footprint is expanding…everyone likes new cars and refrigerators and ACs. When I moved to this little island no one had a new car and there were no ACs and people just made do. Not like that now. They can afford BMWs and fancy things, believe you me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, xiggi, I am curious whether the US is importing wind turbines from other countries, or if the lack of a viable domestic production industry is enough to kill the use of wind energy in the US?</p>
<p>Mini, those are your sound bites and talking points, and I doubt that the energy footprint of a few in India and Kenya are that significant. All the third world countries and oil and utilities companies and other corp. are the main polluters.</p>
<p>Too much Faux News.</p>
<p>[Op-Ed</a> Contributor - We Can’t Wish Away Climate Change - NYTimes.com](<a href=“Opinion | We Can’t Wish Away Climate Change - The New York Times”>Opinion | We Can’t Wish Away Climate Change - The New York Times)</p>
<p>This is an article written by Gore that deals with mini’s “2010 contentions” and other denier issues.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/47913.pdf[/url]”>http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/47913.pdf</a></p>
<p>This is a 2010 report, and I know of one listed company that has gone under, and another that has since opened and is not listed.</p>
<p>There is a growing middle class everywhere including India. I get ads for Indian television on my satellite. They have been using such a small amount of energy until recently…last ten years. I haven’t been to Kenya in a long time, but it may be happening there as well. Most of my news is coming from Europe and Asia over the television. I have watched the changes for over twenty years.</p>
<p>Overseas, when I was referencing the few in India and Kenya, I meant the few with whom mini works. Yes, polluting in Asia and Africa and South America are huge problems.</p>
<p>And, because mini likes to brag that he is a polluter - it doesn’t mean he is a role model or to be copied. It is one thing when the uneducated deniers spout their rhetoric. It is another when somebody claims to be an educated person with three degrees and they do it.</p>
<p>I am a polluter even though I only drive my car once a week and walk mostly. My ac is going right now since we now have power after the big summer explosion. The key is that we all need to do something to make our lifestyles possible. I am coming home soon. I can’t wait. But I don’t see much cooperation, to say the least. I believe we can change. I know we can.</p>
<p>Oh, I don’t go out of my way to be a polluter - I just don’t go about bragging about my contribution to ending global warming. (I have no AC, I’ve never purchased a new car, and grow a substantial part of my own food. I don’t want to see my kids (or anyone’s kids) experience a decade- or two-decades-long global depression.</p>
<p>But, on a global basis, my lifestyle and that of virtually everyone I know (except those in the local homeless camp) are, from a global warming perspective, way over the sustainability level. I don’t have to brag that I’m a polluter - it’s pretty easy to see, so I’m pleading guilty to the obvious.</p>
<p>Gore has been pulling back from his own scientific conclusions for the past six years - he has to if he doesn’t want to appear defeatist. Find his articles from 2005, not 2010, when the water was already over the dam.</p>