Global Warming:If your theory can't predict or explain the observed facts, it's wrong?

there is another option that has recently been revealed to be popular in certain academic circles. suppress or hide any observed facts that don't agree with your theory!

Yes because scientific method requires that a theory be repeatable and adhering to the laws of science. Laws of science are not like traffic laws-They are not breakable, as a rule. MAN made global warming says that "man" causes warming by making Carbon (exhaling) or by "other" forms of pollution. SInce we are still polluting the temperatures continue to go lower on the graph and we continue to see weather patterns that are oppositional to "global warming", then we have further evidence to question the manipulated science that Al Gore (and his disciples) likes to use as proof. The man made Global Warming Police say that CO2 is the main culprit and must be taxed (aka Cap & Trade Bill and Carbon Offsets). However CO2 is vital for plant growth (which gives of oxygen) and only amounts to a small amount of the total greenhouse gases. Water vapor is in the majority. The logical conclusion to the stop Global Warming movement would be to tax and cut back on water.

right i agree.

If you were a scientist, you would believe this. This logic is a little bit beyond the AGWers. I would suggest using smaller words for them.

But you must remember that up until the 1850s what we now call liberals were restricted to being low end farm workers because they were unable mentally to handle complex tasks required in engineering trades and science. Then came David Rockefeller and his brothers who were not mentally capable of anything more complex than crime. So they first tried taking over the world through politics bringing us several wars from WW1 through Iraq. Then they invented AGW and used it to change governments around the world putting their servants in charge of many western and some eastern nations. But even though they once again have one of their servants in the White House the entire scheme is on the ropes because has no real evidence to support it and the truth was revealed by the work of some courageous hacker who found where critical evidence was hidden and made it public to the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator http://www.nss.org/settlement/ColoniesInSpace/index.html http://www.spacefuture.com/ http://www.larryniven.org/stories/nightmare.shtml http://www.larryniven.org/stories/nivens_laws_2002.shtml http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/

There is no "recent cooling trend". http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/ http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-we-know-global-warming-is-happening-Part-2.html But even if there were a slight short-term cooling trend, it would not be outside the predictions of climate models. "Over the short 8 year period, the regressions range from -0.23ºC/dec to 0.61ºC/dec." http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/

Actually, a measure of cooling is to be anticipated. That is why some people have abandoned the term "global warming" for something more accurate, like "global climate change." The basic trend which led to the term "global warming" is that the average global temperature is increasing overall. If average global temperatures increase, this means that some places might get cooler, but overall temperatures are increasing. Some years might also show an drop in average temperatures for that year, but when considered on a longer timeline (in terms of decades, rather than years) the average global temperature is increasing.

You're right. A theory stands or falls based on the accuracy of its predictions. However, 2000-2010 is shaping up to be the warmest decade on record. Where exactly are you getting that there is a cooling trend? Sorry, but 2008 being slightly cooler than 2007 doesn't change the fact both of them are still in the top ten warmest years ever.