There are a multitude of GW links on my FR homepage.
Show him the Hadley emails.
Does AGW pass or fail the Falsifiability Principle ?
Karl Popper argued that prima facie evidence of a bogus theory was the practice of altering or enlarging it, by its authors, to accommodate new evidence since its original formulation. This, he argued, had happened in the case of Marxism and, still more, Freudianism. Scientific theories, he argued, must be very precise and scientific to be of any use. Marxism and Freudianism were just portmanteau notions into which virtually any kind of phenomena could be made to fit. Hence Marxism led to political and economic disaster areas like the Soviet Union, and Freudianism to a stupendous waste of time and money.
.
.
.
It is a pity Popper did not live to see that Global Warming fit perfectly into his model of a pseudo-theory. It is vaguely and imprecisely formulated. It fails the falsifiability test, because all new evidence is made to fit by enlarging the theory. When originally formulated in the 1980s, Global Warming produced by man-made emissions would lead, it was argued, to much higher temperatures and desiccation. There would be a huge drop in rainfall and an imperative need to build seawater desalination plants. I recall an unusually dry summer (1987) in the English Lake District, normally rainy, was triumphantly presented as “absolute proof” of the theory. This autumn, the Lake District had an unusually wet spell, culminating in floods that engulfed the delightful town of Cockermouth, where Wordsworth was born. This was pounced upon by Global Warming “experts” as “absolute proof” of their theory, and paraded as such in Copenhagen.
.
.
.
The fact is that the theory has now been expanded to include any unusual form of weather, anywhere. Hot summers, warm winters — global warming. Cold weather at an unusual time of year — global warming. Drought, storms, floods — global warming. No snow on the ski slopes, sudden snow, out of season snow, very heavy snow — global warming.
.
.
.
It is a form of pantheism and a useful emotional outlet for people who have renounced Judeo-Christianity. If someone is anti-American, left-liberal, and atheist, it is virtually certain he (or even she: women are notoriously more skeptical about it than men are) is a Global Warmer.
.
.
.
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/02/03/the-real-way-to-save-the-plane
There are a multitude of GW links on my FR homepage.
Beating your head against the wall would be more productive. It is a religous belief, a cult, and there is no way you will convince a true believer regardless of the evidence.
Better to find someone with an open mind.
They aren’t going to admit it for a long time, there is too much invested in it, both money and face.
Global Warming’s undead. Killed, but resurrected as “Climate Change”, apparently killed by scandal, but sure to rise again. Need to find someone with silver bullets.
How about snow in every State?
How can it be discredited when it was neve “credited” to begin with? AGW has always been complete garbage believed in only by idiots, charlatans, goons, nuts, and fascists.
Aside from all the scandals lately, ask the following questions:
1) What is the *right* temperature for the earth? (If Gorebbel’s Warming advocates are going to say that the earth is getting “too hot” they need to be able to say what the “right” temperature is, just like you can say that a normal temperature for the human body is 98.6 and 102 is too hot. This should be extremely easy question to answer if the scientific debate was *settled*. It would be a number that is trumpeted by the liberals every day.)
2) When the global temperature was warmer in the past, was it MORE conducive to life on this planet or LESS? Given the answer to this question, is warming a good or bad thing?
3) If CO2 levels and temperatures were much, much higher in the past, how did the earth ever recover? Why isn’t the planet a barren wasteland now? Is there any chance the system can self-regulate?
Absolutely Not!
I’ve got 2 feet of snow outside my house to prove it!
LOL!
;-)
Follow the money- the EU has 4 TRLLION invested in global warming being FACT. The head of the IPCC fund is head of British pensions.
Figure this out.
Ask your friend this question, “If global warming is man made, then how did the last four ice ages end?”
The Earth has been warming for the last 20,000 or so years; witness the sudden (in geological terms) end of the last glaciation. Now matter how hard we try, we can not affect the global temperature more than a fraction of a degree for any period of time. A “nuclear winter”, for example, would last a few years, and show up as a tiny blip on a chart of a thousand years, which to nature is the blink of an eye.
Climate change is natural and beyond our control. I’m all for not fouling our nest; clean water and air are good things. But leftists’ lying about the results of human activity makes me want to get a really big coal furnace just to pi$$ the liars off!
Oh heck no. These kind of things never die:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_JWywDqgRs
parsy, who knows you will ROTFLYAO!
It has long before humans got here and will probably continue to do so long after we are gone.
It was never credible to begin with.
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".