Without proof, it is the fallacy of trying to prove a negative. "There's a teapot in orbit between the earth and the moon." "Oh yeah, prove it." "Well, prove that it's not." Don't get sucked into that one.

Anyone who wants proof that God exists misunderstands the point entirely. Life is meant to be an unbiased test to see what we will do in a variety of situations: how we act, what values are important, etc. If the only reason you don't do something is not to get caught, you are operating under the compulsion of fear, rather than on a foundational understanding and commitment to unchanging principles.

For those who want to find proof, it abounds. For those who want a personal manifestation to scare them into changing their ways - or simply just so that can experience something spectacular - they are asking for the equivalent of a spiritual atom bomb to get dropped on their heads. Personally, I advise that there are much easier and less dramatic ways to answer the question, but they do involve replacing open antipathy and skepticism with a real openness and scientific pursuit of the truth.

This is the same scientist who empirically compared all of the published global warming models to the real temperatures over the past 20 years and found that none of them were accurate and only one of the twenty was even in the ballpark.

The reality is that man-made global warming is a hoax pushed on us by people who want to profit from the government regulations they are pushing. Want proof? Look no further than the high priest himself: Al Gore. His net worth as Vice President was under a million dollars. After he became the face of anthropogenic global warming he became worth tens of millions of dollars.

To presume that mankind can predict the weather - one of the most complex interactions in science - is an act of sheer hubris.

Hi Lucky,

Actually there appears to be a lot of problems with the "science" associated with determining CO2 levels. See http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/ and http://www.fakeclimate.com/arquivos/Inte... and http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/35-....

The problem with having a rational discussion about AGW is that AGW prophets think it is acceptable to lie about the data. This makes a rational discussion almost impossible.

There is no gravity, the universe sucks.

Fabulous info. now if we could get al gore to read it and promote it seeing that he is good at promoting things.

I get a strong flavor in this paper, from the young and the old, of an interest in the scientific. Where so, I sugest that those among you who do call up "Cosmological Musings" via Google.

It may interest you that I was compelled, some 40 years ago (or more) to get rid of an Expanding Universe. I believe I did, with the help of Ayn Rand.

Jim Wright

The utter Hubris of Humans to think they can understand and predict a climate system that's been around for 4.5 Billion years !

The teapot belongs to philosopher Bertrand Russell. He used it when discussing the existence of God. See this article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27...

Russell created a system of expression for symbolic logic, and is perhaps famous for a paradox:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27...

Russell's view of logic was not the same as Rand's. My own attempts to cast Rand's logic into the framework of Russell's met with failure right at the outset. Still, he is worth readingfor his often provocative viewpoints. Among Objectivists Russell has been described as inconsistent in his philosophy, but perhaps it's only because he lived long enough to change his mind several times. I heard one Objectivist wit remark (borrowing from Heraclitus who said that all is change, and that you cannot step into the same river twice), "You cannot step into the same Russell twice."

As for global warming, I try to ask the proponents of the theory to explain Mars, where CO2 is presumably at a higher concentration in the skimpy Martian atmosphere.

The global warming "science" is actually a religion, as it is to be believed in the face of contrary evidence. It is "settled" and anyone who disagrees is a heretic.

If I may return the discussion back to the theme of the original post-

We have seen it before but it is so good that it is worth a second round.
For the record, there is a sentence which I am sure is a misquote
(credit to poster on the Yorkshire newspaper forum):

"There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years."
It should say:
There is no reproducible scientific evidence that CO2 has caused any significant increase of temperature in the last 100 years.
That is, there has been a measured increase in CO2, but it does not correlate with measured temperature.

Ok to now return to religion and epistemology.

Just what I have been saying for years since this bs started. Global Warming/term du jour cannot be proven via consensus of the folks with all the initials behind their names. A scam meant to separate the gullible from their money to donate to something which no one can do anything to change. The planet will continue to go round and round doing whatever it does, and has done since before man was a factor at all. That man can change that, either for the good or the bad, is highly egotistical. Yes, GW, is nonsense.

ok then. get back in there and prove me wrong!

in no way was I hostile. Incredulous, perhaps. Hardly deserved the ad hominem and ridicule.
The intelligent design concept of "specified complexity" was developed in the 1990s by mathematician, philosopher, and THEOLOGIAN William A. Dembski.[4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent...
so, we have a theologian who first postulated the hypothesis of intelligent design. Theologians do not generally acknowledge "some higher form of intelligence" rather God. again with the ad hominem attack. Your experience with our administrators on this site has been one of "teacher" vs unruly student? really? I did say "flag" and I meant "hide" which is a producer post privilege. I am sorry for the confusion on that. This site is about discussing ideas within reason and logic. Prepare to support your assertions. I have to do it on this site, why don't you? I began a post about man made global warming. We are now discussing intelligent design. Most producers would say start your own thread. I said immediately, have the conversation. but I did not call you names, nor did I intentionally insult you. Rather I questioned your assertions, expecting lively debate. Instead you sort of called me ignorant, and yes, a slut. well done

Thanks, I agree that my video reply was not appropriate to your post.

You stated that intelligent design is "a theory predicated on God and existence of God." I stated that is not my view. Intelligent design is about higher intelligence and does not require God or any all powerful being (although the actions of higher intelligence, even human intelligence, have been considered as such in the past.) It is not religious theory. I think your arguments were inappropriate to the content of my post.

Suspension of judgement on a theory is not the same as ignoring it.
I made no statement whatsoever against the theory of evolution except that I reserved judgement. Read your own post and see if you think it was a calm rational response to my comment, or if it could be taken as hostile (as I read it to be.)
What I know about the theory of evolution is that the fossil evidence partially supports it. It does not completely explain how humans have come to be as they are, much less all other parts of the universe.
Having a theory of evolution that is partially supported by the fossil record does nothing to preclude intelligent design.
You are confident of the complete truth of the theory of evolution. Based on evidence, the theory is not adequate, imo. Perhaps someday it could be, or maybe not.Therefore I reserve judgement.

I have no vested interest in either theory being true or false. I don't care enough to continue a discussion with you.
If you wish to report me to the teacher, by all means do so.
I am sure you have a lot more "pull" than I do.
Then the teacher can block my posts and censor my opinions.

the more I think about this, the more I conclude your behavior is completely out of line. why would you choose to stoop so low on this site? have you run out of reasoned arguments? if you were making a joke, please let us all in on it. Instead you stooped to attacking and running. I enjoy good debate, but I will not be insulted on my own posts. If I see you do it again to producers on this site I will flag you

Your ignorance of epistemology could fill an encyclopedia. Your argument is that without knowledge of everything you know nothing. Then why are you typing these words? Clearly, you don't know everything, so your words are meaningless.

Unprovable, untestable, and devoid of facts. Brilliant. This is an objectivist website, evidence and logic matter.

I thought the video would be some evidence to back your comments. huh. I'll give you a pass because we all get cranky in LA

looking forward to it.