GTWT

Well, words matter, and if you're going to discuss science you should learn to use words as they're used in science. You're right though that theories don't "turn to fact". It's the other way around. Facts are the basis for theories. The facts behind the science of climate change are published in peer reviewed journals and summarized in the IPCC reports. It's okay to disagree with the interpretation of those facts, but if you do you should base that disagreement on sound science and not religion, economics, or ideology. And certainly not on '90's pop psychology of the greedy nature of scientists.

'90, I know there are climate scientists who question climate change. Mostly, though, they're questioning the interpretation of data gathered by other scientists. Can you give me some examples of actual climate change research that questions climate change or it's anthropogenic causes? Thanks in advance!

Sigh.... A 'theory' in science is a statement that is supported by all the available evidence and contradicted by none. I suspect you meant to say "just a hypothesis" but you would still be wrong. Do you have support for some of your contentions, such as "the antarctic (sic) has been building at record rates"? Or is this just BS making for more BS?

Oh! '90, I hope you don't see this as another climate change thread!

My wife & I just saw the movie Noah. I was pleasantly surprised. It was a story powerfully told - with good acting, good plot, good message. It was thought-provoking. Not too surprisingly, Ken ham of Answers in Genesis (and Bill Bye the Science Guy Debate fame), hated it. http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2014/03/28/the-noah-movie-is-disgusting-and-evil-paganism/ I'm interested in the responses of those of you who watched Noah. Do you agree with Ham?

Please, '90, tell me you know what a 'theory' is in science. That's why it's called 'climate change', '90, it ain't just about warming. I'm going to try really hard to refrain from adding anything else to this thread but I'm weak, Lord, I know I'm weak.

What dire predictions are you referring to '90 - not that 70's global cooling silliness are you? And no, I haven't read the book you recommended. I did look it up on Amazon. It's on a very long list.

'90, does it bother you that your understanding od science is on par with Representative Weber?

Rick, There's a difference between weather & climate. But you know that. GBT

The ultra-right/religious fundamentalist wing of GMG is in serious need of reality therapy. With a lot of work '90 can be brought to understand that everything ain't about religion, FFR can be brought to understand that everything ain't about money, and Lonnie can be brought to understand that logic is a good thing. It ain't likely to happen.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fgerdleonhard.typepad.com%2F.a%2F6a00d8341c59be53ef013488b614d8970c-popup&h=0&w=0&tbnid=L6H12Cn0WTyrsM&zoom=1&tbnh=222&tbnw=227&docid=EdlT0X-DCrY2PM&tbm=isch&ei=2cg5U938A4muqQHuzYGICA&ved=0CAsQsCUoAw

If they tell you that driving 90mph into a brick wall is stupid, is that fear-mongering too?

Not that it will change ‘90’s mind, but there is a new report out on climate change from the IPCC. The BBC has a short write-up - http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26810559 Michel Jarraud, secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization, said that, previously, people could have damaged the Earth's climate out of "ignorance". "Now, ignorance is no longer a good excuse," he said. If ignorance is no longer a justification that leaves only …. You finish the sentence.

You're projecting again, '90.

You left out - "Global warming brings out all the Flat Earthers, Creationists, & other science deniers."

An apparently anonymous article in the Economist telling scientists how science ought to be done. Yeah, that's convincing.

Years ago I was GTNT.

The point, Lonnie, is that there is damn little in the scientific literature that casts doubt on anthropogenic climate change. The articles you cite are written by journalists - often with a bias - not by scientists. Journalists who are trained to present both sides to a issue, even if one side is pseudoscience. If there is any truth to the idea that the earth's climate isn't changing, or the idea that the change is due to something other than man's release of fossil carbon, then you should be able to find support for those ideas in the scientific literature. Obviously you can't. One explanation is that 90 is right and nearly all scientists are faking data and fudging interpretations to keep their government funding. Or maybe, just maybe, the physicists are right about CO2 being a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the earth's atmosphere, the atmospheric scientists are right about the level of CO2 increasing as a result of humans burning coal, oil, and natural gas, and the climatologists are right about about the effect all of this will have on the climate our children will have to live in. I'm tired of hearing the same silly garbage. If you want to believe that a scientific consensus agreed with global cooling in the 70s, then have at it. If 90 wants to believe that all scientists are money-grubbing liars, then he's welcome to. It's sad but there's obviously nothing in science that will trump your ideology.

Xyy, Lonnie, 90, Please post something, anything, in the scientific literature that supports your position. Not Newsweek, not the New York Times, not New American but Nature or Science or Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. Until you do I'll hold the opinion that you are all representative of right-wing ideologues - short-sighted, simple-minded, and ignorant. I say that with all due respect.

It's not just a blog KingDl. The New American is the rag of the John Birch Society.

I get it UNT90. You don't like the government. That's your problem. Some scientists do work for government agencies, some scientists do have NSF grants. The way science works is that you pose hypotheses, you test those hypotheses, then you submit your results & wait for feedback from your peers. Who funded your research ought not, and usually doesn't, matter. Sometimes it does of course. Some scientists are dishonest, some are motivated by money, and some are ideologues BUT the vast majority are committed to finding the truth and then publishing the truth. You project your motivation - the holy dollar bill - on everyone. You can't understand that there are people who value other things. Sorry UNT90 but that's just sad.

I rest my case.

The Heartland Institute? Really?

Here's a link to that rare popular press article that give an objective and fair look at the 'Global Cooling Scientific Consensus'. http://web.archive.org/web/20030720102706/thenewamerican.com/tna/1997/vo13no25/vo13no25_alarmism.htm If only all conservative joutnalism was this balanced! You do sense the sarcasm? Please?

Lonnie, you’re linking to a popular article in the NY Times. Try reading, and understanding, the science. From the 1975 National Academy of Sciences report on climate referenced by the Times article, "...we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate...". That seems a reasonable assessment of climate science 40 years ago. Oh, the report did mention cooling, "there seems little doubt that the present period of unusual warmth will eventually give way to a time of colder climate, but there is no consensus as to the magnitude or rapidity of the transition. The onset of this climatic decline could be several thousand years in the future, although there is a finite probability that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the earth within the next 100 years". A little further on the report states, "The question remains unresolved. If the end of the interglacial is episodic in character, we are moving toward a rather sudden climatic change of unknown timing, although as each 100 years passes, we have perhaps a 5% greater chance of encountering its onset If, on the other hand, these changes are more sinusiondal in character, then the climate should decline gradually over a period of thousands of years. … “ A little further… “These climatic projections, however, could be replaced by quite different future climatic scenarios due to man's inadvertent interference with the otherwise natural variation...” I don't really see much global cooling hysteria here but you can read it however you want. If you really want to understand climate change don’t read Time or Newsweek or the NY Times. Read the 1975 report itself or read the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Read ‘The Myth of the 1970’s Global Cooling Consensus’ published in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1 I’m not sure why the fiction of a global cooling consensus in the 1970s gives comfort to science deniers. That old canard is so easily disproven. I suspect it boils down to the lack of regard that climate science deniers have for the truth.