In U.S., Most Do Not See Global Warming as Serious Threat

Good thing science is fact based, not opinion based.

"Older Americans Less Likely to See Global Warming as Threat"

Duh! If it does end up being bad, they'll be in their grave by then.

Yeah. That's what I said when I read this...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... 4799097478

Let's cut the crap. Opinion matters to both sides of this debate. It is a debate, and it does have a large political influence.

The difference is the climate realist/no-catastrophe side doesn't have to make stuff up concerning support. As far as the science goes our side holds it own to the point I notice you guys appear to be kind of afraid of even the term "scientific method".

Except that so many people would like to argue that 'THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED! THE DEBATE IS OVER!' as if that constituted a scientific argument of any sort.

Oh, and I am still waiting for an AGW true-believer to provide me with the set of criteria that would disprove their theory, something that is necessary to validate a theory.

Science?

"Global Warming" or "AGW" is nothing more than capitalism at it's worst.

Stop bringing logic into this!

Oh, and I am still waiting for an AGW true-believer to provide me with the set of criteria that would disprove their theory, something that is necessary to validate a theory.

Again, a theory does not have to provide it's own conditions of disproof, it simply has to be . Ie: "$deity reached His hand from the heavens and made it that way" is not falsifiable. Newtons laws of gravity are falsifiable in that any experiment that can disprove them means they are false.

AGW is falsifiable simply by providing data that contradicts the theory that the Earth is warming and humans are contributing to it.

Stop bringing logic into this!

Better yet, stop talking about having it, and actually try to produce some.

So far you're like these little kids with their little fists balled up, who have convinced themselves they have power they've seen in their comic books.

No, once more you are fundamentally incorrect. The debate has never been that the earth can warm, and has recently warmed some. Nor does anybody debate that humans can affect weather, or even climate.

The debate begins when you begin preaching that a catastrophe is coming and you pervert the term science to say it offers proof of your coming apocalypse.

No, once more you are fundamentally incorrect. The debate has never been that the earth can warm, and has recently warmed some. Nor does anybody debate that humans can affect weather, or even climate.

The debate begins when you begin preaching that a catastrophe is coming and you pervert the term science to say it offers proof of your coming apocalypse.

You mean like trying to pass public opinion off as the antidote to pretty accurate computer models?

Nope, it doesn't work that way and you know better.

I don't have to provide the data values to prove that your theory is falsifiable, that's YOUR job or else I get to ignore your theory and mark down your mid-term paper because you failed to provide a proof.

YOU provide the set of values that would disprove your theory so other scientists and skeptics can test your theory against that set of values.

Ideally, you would have already tested your theory against that set of values to make sure that your theory has some substance to it.

Kindly provide your specific set of data values that we can use to test your theory over the data set of raw, unadjusted temperature figures for 1992 to 2012.

And, no, I'm not the least bit interested in another chart or graph.

Feel free to show me a computer model that can accurately predict the weather for last month or the climate patterns for last year and we'll talk.

Because no such model exists that can accurately extrapolate KNOWN weather and climate data just so far back as thirty days.

Nope, it doesn't work that way and you know better.

I don't have to provide the data values to prove that your theory is falsifiable, that's YOUR job or else I get to ignore your theory and mark down your mid-term paper because you failed to provide a proof.

YOU provide the set of values that would disprove your theory so other scientists and skeptics can test your theory against that set of values.

I do know better, and that is the exact opposite way science works. A theory is proposed that explains observational data (in this case), and then other scientists try to disprove that theory, usually by trying to prove the data does not fit the theory. The proposer doesn't have to build a scenario that disproves their own theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Overview