And just for the record I would take studies by scientists who work for the oil company with a grain of salt just like I would the studies from scientists who work for governments and colleges who stand to profit from whatever conservation agendas their bosses have.

I also posted the study that claims the situation is even more dire then we'd previously believed. And some of you guys seemed to think it was pretty damn dire 15 years ago.

One positive for the economy is that for consumers in the market to purchase placards saying the end is near, there are plenty of them in the second hand market. Just saying.

WSS

@westside-steve said:

Notice the "in relation to science" in my post. When you are talking about the scientific method, hypothesis and theory are not even close to being the same thing.

@mld-woody said:

It is funny because we've had this conversation a dozen times too...

In what world is hypothesis a synonym of theory? At least in relation to science

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english-thesaurus/theory

The theories are the explanations proposed in step two of the scientific method. Usually the word "theory" is reserved for more than a first attempt, which might be called a "hypothesis." A theory usually has already survived several falsification attempts, and is pretty well accepted. However, I'll use the word theory to mean any explanation of observations.

That would be my main complaint. He uses the words "theory" and "hypothesis" interchangeably. That seems like a gross oversimplification. A hypothesis is based off of nothing more than your observations and maybe some data. A theory is developed after multiple runs of the scientific method. Multiple experiments, multiple hypotheses, multiple reviews. Using the words interchangeably does not give enough credibility to what a scientific theory actually is.

Saying man made climate change is not a fact is irrelevant, and plays into the exact point I made earlier about how you logic works (like creationism; at least Osiris got the connection). I think Osiris did a pretty good job of breaking it down for you, so I am not quite sure what else I can tell you.

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/astronomy/science.html

Like I said, a theory is not fact. Information that contradicts

a theory proves it to be... a theory. Not fact.

In what world is hypothesis a synonym of theory? At least in relation to science

@westside-steve said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

The word theory and its application in science is different, best summed up here:

"The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed"

No, a theory IS a conjecture. And, btw, I give woodypeckerhead back what he gives out.

All sorts of folks disagree with me, I'm often full of baloney, and have my opinions

without drawing them from politics. I draw them from my own experiences, and all the reading I do.

Then, someone like woody says the opposite to smart off, and then I simply posts some posts

explaining my side of things. That's all. And, I used "theory" correctly (from Wikipedia I think it was:

***************************************************

theory  

Use Theory in a sentence

A

the·o·ry [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA

noun, plural the·o·ries.

1.

a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

2.

a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles: conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.

@mld-woody said:

http://grist.org/news/l-a-times-wont-publish-climate-denier-letters/

WSS

WSS

@calfoxwc said:

Please, cal, I'm not here trying to stick up for Woody, but if you're going to attack him personally, do it right. And no, despite this and the other comment I just made, I'm not trying to attack you. You've always been civil with me, even when we disagree (frequently); but the constant abuse of Woody - and anyone who disagrees with you - and the scaremongering about Obama, liberals and anything that is even remotely out of line with your political/religious beliefs is really beginning to grate.

@calfoxwc said:

The rational behind it is the same as what you are doing now, try to keep up.

Or continue with the insults, which by your own words mean you have nothing productive to say.

A fact doesn't have hundreds, and hundreds ? of scientists who reject mmgw.

Therefore, it's a theory. If a N end of a magnet is only attracted to the S end of another

magnet only 85 percent of the time...

would you say it always happens?

Of course you would, if that was the lib narrative of the day, handed down to you by heck.

@calfoxwc said:

As usual, you don't know what the hell you are talking about, and you resort to personal attacks instead of explaining WHY you think what you think.

For like the millionth time, no one said there aren't scientists that you can find that think man made climate change is fake. You can find "scientists" that think the Earth is 6,000 years old.

You don't throw something out completely because we aren't 100% sure, only 90%. That's basically the same logic creationists use. The data is there. The overwhelming majority of qualified scientists have spoken their minds. To ignore climate change completely be cause there are some dissenters is Retarded.

And for your sources, I'm just talking about something other than what amounts to a right wing blog.

a hundred scientists who strongly disagree with mmgw as fact.

Simply put, you asscrevice woodypeckerhead, you all claim mmgw is FACT. Therefore, credible

evidence to the contrary defeats that.

You can diss the site it comes from, and diss the author reporting, and referring to the facts on the flip side,

and you can whine and bitch and cry and wet yourself over it, but you don't even support your side of things

much at all.

You want me to post anti mmgw stuff from msnbc or the Communist News Network? I doubt they will print

anything - it doesn't fit their narrative.

So, until you can logically criticize the CONTENT OF THE INFORMATION POSTED, you are a lightweight,

a dipsheet, a slime on the belly of a snail on the bottom of the ocean, and you reek of ignorance.

Grow the freakin up.

@calfoxwc said:

You are such a hypocritical idiot... my god. I don't even care if I'll get shit for my normal insulting of you.

My god... it is like you post these things you dislike about people you disagree with, but completely miss those characteristics in yourself. It is such a selective view of things it is astounding.

You act like reading an article on the Blaze, which you already know you'll agree with, is "figuring out what all the information on an issue really means".......... jesus christ

In your mind posting an editorial from a conservative blog = backing up what you think but posting scientific articles from real sources = emotional liberal nonsense

You are fucking unbelievable... Part of me still thinks you are just some character, just some guy trolling us at his keyboard.

without ever having figured out what all the information on an issue really means.

And nobody is "posting articles around "mexicans are bad"...blah blah blah.

Posting articles about BAD mexicans, is saying we have a serious illegal immigration problem.

I know, you don't get it. BTW, you lol at every consonant and vowel in anybody's post you don't like.

Get a grip.

@fairhooker11 said:

now THATS irony!

I don't see it...

So, even though I'm the one with a dissenting opinion to the majority opinion on this board most of the time, I'm the one that cant think for himself?

I'm not the one that posts articles around "Mexicans are bad", or from the same 3 conservative sites/blogs every time.... but I'm totally the one that can't think for themselves, lol . OK.

But in a couple hundred years everything will be completely different than it is today. One thing we could do today is switch every light fixture in every stadium factory School Street business office home etc to.led.

that would take probably 90 percent of the burden of of the coal and nuclear and wind and whatever energy producing plants that exist.

But right now, today, fossil fuel is probably the most efficient and cost effective method available. That will change. Right now, at least in my opinion, global warming and the Doom that it might bring is just an excuse for political posturing and more taxation.

regardless of how it's caused and how much and by whom.

WSS

@diehardbrownsfan said:

@the-cysko-kid said:

Is a very viable option. I agree

Seconded. I'm not sure where we are on the 'clean-ness' of it all though - there's still a large amount of waste to dispose of that afaik hasn't been accounted for yet.