Nobody wants to hear, read or see this - it interferes with the instant gratification of assuming a personal belief which is satisfying, whether it's a "truther" blathering on about the WTC or a "thumper" claiming things happened because the Bible™ says so.

Learning how to avoid fallacies is just too difficult, and does allow that feeling of personal righteousness.

Grr. *doesn't

A good test to see whether a hypothesis is scientifically constructed is to look at its falsifiability; that is, to think about what evidence, if it existed, would prove the theory false. A well known example of this was the steady-state theory of the creation of the universe, which speficically stated, "if cosmic background radiation is ever found, its existence will disprove this theory". Sure enough, the microwave background was found (by accident) in the 1960s, and the steady-state theory was discarded.

Falsifiability is the #1 problem with the theory of anthrocentric global warming. As currently constructed, there is no possible weather event that could ever disprove the theory. Even if the entire world froze solid in an instant, a la "The Day After Tomorrow", that would still, according to advocates, support their global-warming theory. This is how conspiracy theories are constructed: anything that suggest that the theory is false is taken by the advocates to be part of the conspiracy whose existence they hypothesize. Non-falsifiable theories can be very lucrative for the people who advocate them, but they seldom contribute anything positive to the human condition.

"As currently constructed, there is no possible weather event that could ever disprove the theory."

Wow. You're wanting a weather event - from the system undergoing a transformation, to provide this?

I hope you're not taking the position I've seen so many other times, where the common observer, decent man and all that, tracks snow into the house and exclaims, "Sorry I got all that global warming all over your carpet! Haw, haw!"

Local weather isn't global, period. If you have unusual cold, that means heat is not where it normally is found. That should suggest something.

Considering that when you burn something, the FIRE is the HOT PART, and that WE are doing the burning...

What is there to falsify? Heat transfer and fluid flow starts out with some pretty simple ideas, but people go nuts denying them because a politician has told them they can't pay a quarter for a gallon of gas any more, they can't buy the light bulbs they're used to and their waterfront property isn't a good idea. But it's so beautiful!

As it turns out, there IS a "falsifiable" element to AGW studies, because the heat rejection and gas emissions into the environment are known quantities; the argument is with people who do not know where the gas in ther tank goes or how electricity is generated - or how the water in their garden hose actually is hotter for having gone through the nozzle spraying their car (yes, it is).

There s no debate that the weather changes, at various points in our planets past it was a giant ice ball, a desert super continent and a tropical super continent.

The last inter glacial period of our current ice age was warm enough for hippos to move to Norway.

My problem with the global warming debate is the pro masses are of the opinion that unless we "do something right now" all life will cease to exist, and the anti masses generally claim god wont let anything get too bad.

Both sides (masses, and to a lesser extant scientists) ignore fluctuating solar output, the fact that earths elliptical orbit rotates, its axial tilt rotates and angle shifts, and the fact the the moon is large enough in mass that the earth and moon rotate around a mutual point while traveling along the elliptical.

The amount of solar radiation the earth absorbs is not static and pretending it is doesnt make climate models more effective.

Then throw in the fact that 40 years ago the same scientists were predicting an ice age and we just as condescending and dismissive to those who disbelieved them, they just didnt have the power of the PC back then.

We've only been accurately tracing the weather for maybe 60 years hardly enough time to make such definitive statements about how global warming will kill us all.

And then there is this

http://newswise.com/articles/view/547541/