gerald wrote:aedens, ---- one of the things that really tick me off is improper statements passed off as fact and the manipulation of the meaning of words. ( these are a cause of much of our problems ) An example --- In the global warming, sorry climate change issue/debate is the idea that CO2 is a pollutant, it is not. CO2 is a necessary plant food. In some greenhouses CO2 is ADDED to it's atmosphere to stimulate plant growth. If it is necessary for plants, how can CO2 honestly be called a pollutant? " Typically, a three- to four-fold INCREASE in CO2 concentration yields a 10% to 25% increase in plant growth. Supplemental CO2 increases leaf area, dry weight, lateral branching, and in some cases decreases time to flower.
http://www.ag.auburn.edu/hort/landscape ... alCO2.html
We are surrounded by lies.
The lies have gotten much larger than that.
There is a scientific theory of man made global warming which is so complex that it can only be described in mathematical computer models. These models exist, this scientific theory of man made global warming does exist. The only reason it can be called a scientific theory is that these computer models can be used to predict what will happen in the future IF THE SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS TRUE, and thus the scientific theory can be disproved if the predictions turn out to be false. Only if a theory has the ability to be used to predict the future and thus it's predictions can be tested ( and found either false predictions, or accurate predictions once the future arrives ) is it a "Scientific Theory". Unless a theory can be tested by prediction, and proven, or dis proven by comparing predictions to reality ( when the future arrives ) , it is, by definition not a scientific theory. If a theory can never be dis proven by comparing predictions of the future to the reality of the future, when the future arrives, then the theory is NOT a scientific theory, by the definition of what a scientific theory is.
Which is where the larger, more fundamental, lie comes in. There is NO SCIENTIFIC THEORY of climate change other than global warming. All the computer models that define the theory that is most often called global warming, but sometimes called climate change, only predict warming, NOT a mix of warming sometimes and cooling at others.
When someone says there is a scientific theory of "Climate Change", that is a theory that predicts both cooling and warming, rather than a scientific theory of climate change that only predicts global warming only, they are simply telling a bold face lie. The only scientific theory related to climate change is the very complex one described in the computer models which define climate change, and all those computer models predict global warming. None predict sometimes global warming and sometimes global cooling.
Thus when the news media, or a politician, suggests their is a "Scientific Theory" of man made "Climate Change" that supports global cooling, they are simply telling the Big Lie, to avoid having to tell a million small lies as part of defending the theory of "Man Made Global Warming" which is proving itself to be false, based on the inability to use the computer models that define the theory to predict the future over the past 15 years. As each of the past fifteen years arrived, they did not agree with what the computer models predicted. Thus for the past 15 years the computer model predictions have failed to predict the actual climate that arrived.
There may be a political theory of climate change other than global warming, or a rhetorical theory of climate change other than global warming, or a philosophical theory of climate change other than global warming, but the only scientific theory related to climate change, is a Scientific Theory of "Man Made Global Warming" ( because the global warming theory is the only theory that has complex computer models that explain and these same computer models can be used to predict future climate, and thus be checked against reality when the future arrives ).