Year of global cooling

The Washington Times ^ | December 19, 2007 | David Deming

[BillF]

Author from the scientific branch of your extended family? :)

Great article.

[redgolum]

This will be just spun as “Global Climate Change” and blamed on humanity any way.

That is the real “global warming” religion. To save the earth, we must kill most of the people.

[RipSawyer]

and make them more habitable year-round?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

But, but, but, but all the polar bears would die and, and the tundra would melt and, and the world would burn up!

[alwaysconservative]

LOLOLOL! There are not a lot of polar bears in those areas (yet, with the growing populations, it may change), but a TON of snowbirds who get the heck outta the frozen tundra each year as soon as they are able to do so.

When I’m trying to warm up my car in 12 degree BELOW zero temperatures, the prospect of seasonal migration looks pretty attractive to me, too.

Finally, I’m with Bjorn Lomborg, who points out how many more people will die from the cold than will ever die from increased warmth, miniscule though it will be.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

"In 2005, a Canadian Greenpeace representative explained “global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter.” In other words, all weather variations are evidence for global warming. I can't make this stuff up"

Global Warming Theory is very robust with respect to data, all observations confirm it with probability 1.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Global Warming is not an hypothesis, it is a theory. General Relativity and Electromagnetism are theories as well. A theory is valid if it can be used to concisely explain past observation and make falsifiable predictions about future observations.

Karl Popper in the 1930’s famously argued that Freudian Psychology failed this test, it was an ideology rather than a scientific theory. Who is the Karl Popper for today?

An hypothesis is simpler than a theory, it is a unitary falsifiable assertion. The assertion, “All swans are white.” is false and falsifiable. Whether or not it is true, it does not explain other observations about swans, or make any predictions beyond predicting any swans observed in the future will be white.

General Relativity famously accounted for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury (past observation) and successfully predicted the deflection of starlight by the sun during an eclipse. But GR is more than a series of hypothesis, it is a coherent (and validated) model of reality.

[Thickman]

The Washington Times is not a surprising source of this. The MSM tries to minimize this paper, but it does some great journalism.

[Turret Gunner A20]

iIf you think any of the preceding facts can falsify global warming, you're hopelessly naive. Nothing creates cognitive dissonance in the mind of a true believer. In 2005, a Canadian Greenpeace representative explained “global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter.” In other words, all weather variations are evidence for global warming. I can't make this stuff up.

Global warming has long since passed from scientific hypothesis to the realm of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo downright damned foolishness.

There -- fixed it.

[steelyourfaith]

~~AGW ™ ping~~