Is it safe to say that the "global warming" theory has been discredited?

If so, how might I prove it to a global warming advocate. I personally believe it to be a hoax, but other than showing that the climate has fluctuated wildly throughout recorded history, he's not going to be dissuaded.

Why should you have to prove glowbull warmongering isn't happening? Under the normal ‘innocent until proven guilty’ approach, isn't the onus on your friend to prove it is happening? So... let your friend raise his/her evidence and then you can sequentially shoot it down. Since virtually all the ‘science’ they hung their hat on has been thoroughly discredited, it's almost like shooting fish in a pond.

The tallest mountains in HI get snow every Winter. Also, with this AGW lie, they never mention the fact that we are still in an Ice Age. (Lucky for us we are currently in an interglacial warm period). One thing is certain is that the Glaicers will come back some day, just that no one knows when. - could be 100 years and it could be 10,000 years.

Here in Dayton, Ohio, we still get all of our water from acquifers left over from the last Ice Sheet that was on top of us over 10,000 years ago.

Anyway, a warm up is a helluva lot better for mankind than a cool down.

It should be the responsibility of someone claiming a factual positive (i.e. CO2 produced by human activities is causing the climate to become warmer over time) to provide hard evidence. Other than the self fulfilling prophesies of computer models (which are easily rigged and not even close to sophisticated enough to duplicate a system as complex and chaotic as the Earth's climate) I am not aware of anything that could be called physical empirical evidence to support the AGW theory.

So, in simple terms tell your friend to show you why he believes AGW is true. Second hand opinions of "scientists", much less a politician who flunked out of a divinity school and couldn't finish law school (see: Al Gore), are not physical evidence.

Meanwhile, you can refer him to or even print out numerous studies which show that the claims said politician and scientists have made are consistently inaccurate (see: Medieval Warm Period, the actual temperature records for the 20th century - hint: the 1930's were hotter than the 90's, ice core measures of CO2 concentrations for the past few hundred thousand years, etc.)

If nothing else you will be able to find out whether your friend is rational or someone who in another age would have believed disease is caused by imbalanced bodily "humors" and the sun revolves around the earth. These were also at one time considered "settled science".

Climate change is natural and beyond our control.

I'd contend that the word "climate" is a synonym for "change". If man could force climate to behave and hold to some ideal, in short order the word "climate" would lose all meaning. If ambient conditions never changed the very nature of "climate" would fall from conscious notice.

If it never got dark, you'd never miss the night.

Regards,
GtG

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.