The most heated political arguments I have gotten in to during the past 10 years have been "climate" arguments. I first got interested when Michael Crichton wrote "State of Fear" and it still applies today (yes, I know it was a novel). In my discussions with warmists, I ask how many books they have read whose facts contradict their belief system, and the answer is always "none." Recently in a rather heated discussion I asked my opponents if they had ever had a discussion about climate change with a "denier" as they like to call us. The answer was "none." I provided a list of ten books that I suggested they read, and of course that was seen as further evidence of a conspiracy by big oil and deniers. Once one's mind is made up, facts do not matter.
I'm hoping that Trump's recent cabinet picks can help sway the masses, but I doubt it. At least maybe he can slow down the every more insistent absurdity and economic damage.

My two cents:
1. According to Karl Popper, a truly scientific theory must be refutable. As many of you have observed, the man made climate change either doesn't offer refutable predictions or the "believers" don't accept them. Perhaps there are some interests involved in all that :).
2. "What I have attempted to show with this book is that no exceptional brain power is needed to construct a new science or to expand on an existing one. What is needed is just the courage to face inconsistencies and to avoid running away from them just because 'that's the way it was always done'. (The Goal, 1986, E.M.Goldratt). We need more courageous people.

My favorite myth about climate change is that CO2 is not the gas causing heating in ANY model showing correlation now. The gas in EVERY model correlating is water vapor. Yet, no one knows this, and although every person familiar with the subject does, no one is educating the public. This is the best evidence of public manipulation for power in present time.

Scientific theories are approximations of the behavior of reality. Sometimes they are very good approximations such as Newtonian mechanics and Special and General Relativity but it is generally recognized even these excellent models are incomplete. AGW is certainly no more "settled science" than Newton and Einstein. AGW is important politically because it can be used to argue that increased government power is necessary to avert a global catastrophe. However, to accomplish this objective AGW does not need to be real, it only needs to be believed.

I think the point is illustrated here:

"A new theory from the University of Amsterdam further strengthens the fact that nothing is constant in this world, even gravity. According to the researchers, gravity is not a fundamental force of nature because it had not really existed at first," says the University Herald of Verlinde's latest work on the subject."

The guy seems to want to make the point that even when considered "settled science" something not previously known can show up and change the "facts". He is making the point with the climate change "For three decades they've predicted disaster and for three decades they've been wrong, yet they can't stop forecasting catastrophe or even generate enough introspection to consider that they might be wrong."

You may disagree with the idea, my agreement with him lies in the fact I do not want anyone ramming their "fixes" down my throat, making me pay taxes, selling me crap fuel, or having to give billions to some foreign country so they can stop spewing a presumed nasty gas. I do not want to have to fund idiots like Gore and his Global Climate Change Business empire, or extend the reach of government to "save the world" or the whales, or the fish, or the poor polar bears. All because a bunch of "scientists" "agree". Climate change may be real, but the efforts to "stop it" will always be an ignorant adventure in manipulation. The only thing man can do is adapt.

I am sure in your everyday life you exercise "science". It is the mystical labeling that makes it become a union niche, just like any professional can be a "teacher" but only those blessed by the system can be "educators".

The point they were making was there is no such thing as "settled science". Even toay you hear the people with the stakes in Climate Change (monery) whining that it is all set, done, agreed to by wall the mainstream science, so anyone who doubts their "truth" is denying the "real truth". The point was gravity is something that everyone settled on 300 years ago, and yet even today, there are new discoveries that alter the "truth". So it is with "climate change or Global Warming" or whatever label they want to use. No one has all the facts, since no one knows just how many facts their are. Particle Physics is a good example of that.

What is said about the 97% myth and climate alarmism is correct.
Refutation of the so-called science used by climate alarmists best belongs to fraud.

References to string theory and gravity, constant or changing, muddy the issue.

I am not smart enough to be a scientist but I have known a few. It is my experience that they never close their mind to anything and would never consider an issue to be closed. (It is kind of what makes them scientists.) When someone says that "all scientists agree", my mind goes numb; I focus on something else and don't catch the rest of their blabbering. I don't begin to understand gravity and have often tried and failed. I have never escaped gravity so I live with it's effects and have faith that it exists. It is one of the few things I accept on faith but it is because I am sure there is an explanation even though it has escaped me.

I am not going to point that down because it really opens some discussions. But, mostly, it is nonsense. Overall, it is just post-modernism and strong skepticism that we can know nothing for certain. (Are they sure about that?) The swipe at climatology was the only point they really wanted to make.

First of all, Investors Business Daily is not an example of mainstream media. It is a free market alternative to the Wall Street Journal. WSJ is mainstream; IBD is not.

On the main point, the research cited on string theory is weak. String theory may have mathematical consistency as an argument, but it lacks empirical evidence. That much is damning. As for that article, if gravity did not exist at the Big Bang, what did? What is the origin of gravity? The author there, Kerry Jackson, admits to not understanding the scientific research cited, yet insists on jumping to a previous conclusion about climate change.

And if "nothing is constant" then the climate is not constant and must be changing. What that means for human action is a different question entirely. The warming climate seems to be enjoyed by wolves, beavers, and elk in Yellowstone. (See here: http://www.yellowstonepark.com/wolf-r...