[Renegade 13]

That's a rather long post to reply to all in one shot, so I'll divide it up, and respond to each part separately.

Both your's and R13's post revolve around a continuing flaw: you both continue to believe that "a theory can be proven wrong without other theories to take its place."

I must fundamentally disagree with you. A theory most definitely can be proven wrong without another theory to take its place. I'll give you a couple examples to make my point:

Take a look at mathematics. Mathematical theorems are extremely difficult to prove, due to the fact that there are so many permutations to look at, that it is impossible to look at them all and categorically state that the theory has been proven (is a law). However, it is possible to prove a mathematical theorem wrong; to do this, you only have to find one instance where the theorem can not adequately explain the results. There, it's proven wrong. But according to you, that's not good enough. No, first you have to have something to take its place. Think about it for a moment, and you'll realize just how ridiculous it is. Saying that something can't be proven false unless there's something better to take its place is just ridiculous on so many levels.

Lets go for a somewhat simplified example. Lets say that I make a claim; the sky is blue because the ocean is blue. Now, this is obviously wrong. It can be proven wrong very simply, just by showing that the ocean is not actually blue as it appears, but is clear (or very nearly). Yet before humanity knew of nitrogen, before humanity knew of space beyond the atmosphere, before humanity knew the true causes of what makes the sky appear blue, there was no better theory to explain why the sky was blue. Does that mean that my theory shouldn't be thrown out the window? I don't think so. My theory simply isn't satisfactory, since it doesn't fit the data.

Admittedly, my example is simplistic in the extreme, but I hope it gets my point across.

last year in my hometown it was colder than the year before.

But, again, I say: "so what"? Scientific progress has nothing to do with the presence or absence of anamolies. Instead, it has everything to do with how well research programs stack up against each other in the face of these anomalies.

I couldn't disagree more. Science has everything to do with anomalies. I'll restate again what I have said before; if a theory can't explain the anomalies it leaves behind, then that theory is obviously flawed, if not totally incorrect.

Let me give you another example, this one related to math. If I have a theory that says (2x) / (xy) = 2 where "x" and "y" are both variables. My theory can be proven to be correct, in some instances. For example, if x=0.6 and y=1, then my theory is proven correct for those variables. Yet if you make x=0.6 and y=2.5, then my theory obviously is incorrect, it has anomalies.

This is again a simplistic example, yet it illustrates my point. My theory explains the result for some values of x and some values of y. However, anomalies exist. But what if you don't have a better theory, what if someone hasn't thought of something that better explains things? You're saying that we should keep accepting (2x) / (xy) = 2 since there's nothing better, even though it is obviously deeply flawed, and in fact, totally incorrect.

I hope I've shown that even theories that are completely, utterly, undeniably wrong can still yield results that seem to make sense in the "real world". However, just because a theory explains some things, if there are continuing to be anomalies, the veracity of that theory has to be cast into doubt. Just because there's nothing better, doesn't mean it is correct, or should be accepted as correct, even partially.

In other words, to simply claim a prevailing/commonly accepted or debated theory is "wrong" without putting forth a counter proposition means one is simply being contrary for the sake of argument. A person who argues for no reason other than to argue has a strange motivation. One that is, perhaps, just knee-jerk dogmatic at its' core.

No, it means the prevailing theory is not satisfactory.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that there are other theories that explain the current gradual increase in temperature. One such theory is that it is part of a natural cycle; unfortunately, this hypothesis is rather hard to prove or disprove. However, that doesn't mean it is without merit.

Now, a few posts back, I made an honest proposal. It was "provide me with a testable supposition that would convince you that you were wrong. What criteria would need to be met for you to change your mind? Tell me that, and then I'll go and test it. And answer me this: if I meet your criteria, then will you change your mind? If I take whatever reasonable test you propose, and meet it, then do you think it possible to change your mind?"

If you are not willing to do that, then that is strong evidence that your beliefs are based solely on dogma, habit, ideology, or self-interest, because it indicates that you are unwilling to change them based on testable criteria (ie: facts).

I am unable to do so as I am not a climatologist, nor even a scientist in any field. However, I put the same challenge to you. Explain some of the anomalies that exist in the theory of global warming. If you can't "then that is strong evidence that your beliefs are based solely on dogma, habit, ideology, or self-interest", to quote you.

And that is why scientific progress relies upon competing research programs

This is exactly true. Yet it seems that almost everyone is so transfixed by the "threat" that global warming supposedly poses that no one is willing to fund anything that has to do with a competing theory. After all, a bunch of people think global warming is true, so it must be true! Better keep pouring money into it! [/sarcasm]

the only thing your statement is doing is saying "Hey, its' hard to measure historical temperatures"

To go from that to "AGW is wrong" is, for the reasons outlined above is erroneous and irrelevant - until it leads to a theory or set of theories that supplant AGW.

This is so wrong, I can barely believe you have said it. The entire theory of global warming is based upon historical temperature measurements. If the accuracy of those measurements is cast into doubt, then the entire theory must as well be cast into doubt. That seems blatantly obvious.

And, of course, it will *always* be hard to measure historical temperatures, and we will always have to rely on proxies. But "proxy" does not equal "false". Hell, if we took that attitude, the entire field of astronomy would be thrown out wit the bathwater.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that astronomy relies on something other than direct measurement. Astronomy is, for the most part, much more based in science fact rather than science projections than climatology. Astronomy utilizes many direct measurements of things like stellar spectra, direct optical wavelength observation of various stellar formations, observations in pretty much every wavelength that is useful, direct observations of supernovae, planetary nebulae, etc. Astronomy is rooted firmly in the cold, hard, accurately measurable facts, unlike much of climatology.