Sounds like the tobacco debate all over again. Oh look! Isn't that The Advancement for Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) the lobby group that was set up to deny that smoking was not damaging for your health. I wonder why they are saying that anthropogenic climate change isn't happening?

hang on, isn't Exxon-Mobil one of their major funders.

You still can't categorically disprove it though can you. Hence, your views are just a theory.

I wouldn't get too excited about a Nobel Prize just yet.

Vincent Gray is a coal chemist who works for a lobby group against climate change policies. Have a look at this:

http://www.desmogblog.com/vincent-gray

I'm a little confused about your definition of theory. I had a look on Dictionary.com (which bases its definitions on the Random House Dictionary) and came up with the following (emphasis is my own):

"1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.
Origin:
1590–1600; < LL theōria < Gk theōría a viewing, contemplating, equiv. to theōr(eîn) to view + -ia -y 3

Synonyms:
1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010."

A coal chemist who works for a lobby group against climate change policies...surely no conflicts of interest there!

I know it's a news article, but this is interesting about Antarctica:

http://www.theage.com.au/action/printArticle?id=1025090

In science a theory is usually a reasoned hypothesis to an observed phenomena. In other words something is seen, and we try to understand what it means.

The classic example is an apple falling on Newtons head. Why did the apple fall....... And so a theory is developed.

It is good scientific practice to consider multiple alternate theories.

Even outlandish observed phenomena like crop circles are given alternative theories. Aliens or pranksters....

But AGW isn’t an observed phenomena. In this case it is the reverse.

It started as a pure theory, and the search is no to find the observed phenomena to support it.

That isn’t necessarily abnormal, however it does not require alternative theories, until the observed phenomena has been noted.

In simple terms, i may have a theory that the oceans will turn to XXXX beer on 21 January 2020. Since it is completely unsupported by evidence there is no need to develop alternative theories.

For this reason I don’t have to have an alternative theory, since the first one is currently unsupported by evidence.

Hi Iolande,

sorry about this, but where on earth did I mention Vincent Grey?????

Was he in that article I cited about NASA?

In your non qualified opinion that is.

Not sure, the article you posted was by Lorne Gunter, a controversial climate change sceptic.

Sorry, my bad - I should have linked this quote instead. The link to the credentials of Vincent Grey and The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition was in response to this article.

my original response:

"Vincent Gray is a coal chemist who works for a lobby group against climate change policies. Have a look at this:

http://www.desmogblog.com/vincent-gray "

Thanks Iolande.

The point of my posting that article was the fact that in 2008 this guy was saying:

The disappearance of the IPCC in disgrace is not only desirable but inevitable. The reason is, that the world will slowly realise that the "predictions" emanating from the IPCC will not happen

Given that the predictions about Himalayan glaciers and Amazon rainforests have just been debunked, I think he deserves a round of applause.

Please note that he didn’t debunk them, so it doesn’t matter if he is a coal scientist or Dr Crippin himself, the point is that he accurately predicted the inevitable disgracing of the IPCC, a process which is underway right now.

But you would accept that I do not need to provide an alternative theory to a speculation?

I respect that you have a different viewpoint, but what I was getting at is that in your opinion it's speculation.

Agreed, both sides are purely speculating.

One says the increase in carbon must be affecting global temperatures, but cannot prove it.

The other side says who cares, if we cant measure it, or if it isn’t within known natural boundaries anyway.

I don’t agree with either sides attitude, but I sure as hell don’t agree with one side telling the world its over and they have proved their theory, because they haven’t. And when the bunch of clowns convince the government to apply extra taxation I get a tad angry.

Then when the socialists, communists and greenies get involved and the argument becomes about giving money to under developed countries and ending industrialisation, then I get very angry.

AGW isn’t about socialism or economics.

It is about continuity of thermal averages across a 2000 year period in an attempt to discern patterns.