John Wesley reported on Albert Einstein's "Theory of Religion".

Perhaps Albert would disagree with you?

I don't think that "theory" , whatever it may be, made it into the peer-reviewed physics literature, which is what he was qualified to comment on scientifically. And are you sure Albert called it a "theory"? That sounds more like someone trying to come up with a clever title when talking about Einstein's thoughts on religion. Scientists are generally more careful in their terminology.

although not in their html....

The anti-science streak goes much, much deeper than climate change. The dismantling of EPA, the opposition to the HPV vaccine (our ONLY vaccine against a cancer), the de-listing of endangered species and the opposition to new listings against the wishes of government scientists, the attempts to identify anonymous reviewers of NIH grants who supported sexual behavior research, the active silencing of NOAA scientists.... the list goes on.

As for climate change, I suggest some of you go back to an intro biology textbook and read about the global carbon cycle, and then look up some articles in current journals about how much more carbon dioxide the planet's oceans can absorb. Or don't. You obviously don't like to hear anything that might cramp your lifestyle.

This article is so ridiculously over-blown that it is hard to even figure out where to begin to comment on it.

Some random thoughts:

1. I'm with one of the other commenters that Romm's assertion that something will impact the next 50 generations is so far beyond reasonable that I am surprised an editor at Solon didn't make him change it. As I write this, aboslutely no one on earth can predict what will happen tomorrow, next week, next month, mext year, next decade, much less for the next 50 generations. The arrogance of the global warming crowd is extreme.

2. If you go back and look at some of the scare tactic predictions from the sixties environmentalists, they were wrong. Population has dramatically increased but there is no systemic starvation. Starvation only occurs where corrupt governments interfere in the normal activities that people do to support themselves. And, there is a common trend which is that when societies become better off, they naturally choose to have fewer kids. As long as economic growth continues, global population will level off and eventually decrease. Air pollution in the US is less than 40 years ago to the point that it never even comes up as a conversation topic any more. Water pollution is down. Things are getting better.

3. The planet has been warmer than it is now and colder than it is now DURING THE TIME THAT MAN HAS BEEN ON THE EARTH. Imagine some Ice Age folks living a good life somewhere and then they get a premonition that it will get warmer. They too would probably be scared. However, the world that came is the one we now hold dear and the old Ice Age is viewed as some crazy abnormal time. There simply is no way to know whether things might be better or worse a little warmer or a little colder.

4. So, what do we do? We let all people make their own choices. Those who believe that CO2 is bad can take action to use energy that is less carbon based. Others can choose to use whichever energy they believe is best. Scientists can continue to argue their points whether they believe things will get colder or warmer. As time passes, people will shift around but as with all other market based decision-making, people do interpret the signals and end up cooperating whether they want to or not. Why? Because the economics will drive it naturally and we will evolve to an adaptive solution. At least, until the asteroid hits or a nearby gamma ray burst fries us all.

As I write this, aboslutely no one on earth can predict what will happen tomorrow, next week, next month, mext year, next decade, much less for the next 50 generations. The arrogance of the global warming crowd is extreme.

that is simply not the case. There are plenty of things that scientists can predict with extraordinary accuracy for the next 50 generations. The position of any of the planets a thousand years from now? Not a problem. The position of North America relative to Africa taking into account plate tectonics? Can do.

Granted, climate models and their affect on ecosystems are a bit more complicated, and precise predictions currently cannot be made. Regardless, the conservative thing to assume is that the predictions of the best climate models (and on that word "best" is where you are likely to get conflict within the scientific community) do give you a general guideline for how to set policy.

It's a myth. It's a myth. It's a myth.

Problem solved!

Thenk yew!

We do what we can. ;)

Sometimes it seems to me, if you read between the lines of the expert commentary, that we have passed the point of no return. No ice at the north pole this year. Populations of Giant squid and jellyfish are exploding. We really don't deserve this remarkable planet. Blah Blah blah. Whimper.

Blair Simpkins: "It's all just theory... Why should I listen to some elitist scientist... They don’t call it the "theory" of climate change for nothing - it has holes. Just like the "theory" of evolution."

One reason you should listing to those "elitist scientists," Blair Simpkins, is because in a scientific context "elitist scientists" know what a "theory" actually means, unlike you. In a scientific theory isn't called that because "it has holes" - a scientific theory is instead, to quote the Oxford English Dictionary:

"A scheme or system of ideas and statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are known to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed."

Thus the theory of gravity, quantum theory, the theory of evolution, the theory of plate tectonics, etc. are not mere speculations or opinions that "have holes" - each is instead an elaborate system of interconnected ideas, strongly supported by scientific evidence, that accounts for a great variety of observable phenomena.

"Elitist scientist" Stephen Jay Gould addresses the point further in the context of debunking so-called "scientific creationism":

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact" - part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? ...

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

http://stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html