Climate 'Study' By Non-Scientist At EPA Is Right's New Cause Celebre

[GaryC 7]

So you agree that GW is a scientific theory, thereby generally accepted (consensus) by the scientific community? I ask this because you argued before that there is no consensus within the scientific community. If there wasn't a consensus, then it wouldn't be a theory....or do you have a different understanding of what consensus means?

As I said before, science isn't about consensus. It is about facts. You can have a theory without a majority of scientists accepting it.

Scientific theories come to existence through consensus or they are not theories, for one. Second, there is no conflict between facts and theory...

Essential criteria

The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no predictions that can be observed is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is inapplicable.

In practice a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a minimum empirical basis, according to certain criteria:

• It is consistent with pre-existing theory, to the extent the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense.
• It is supported by many strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation, ensuring it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Essential_criteria

A theory does not need to have consensus to be a theory. It only needs to predict the facts.

Case in point. Before Copernicus there was an astronomer named Ptolemy. He developed a theory that said the earth was at the center of the universe. He even worked out orbits of the planets orbiting the earth that would predict their motions. It fit all the requirements of a theory. It fit the data, could be tested and predicted future movements. Was it right? Nope. Was there consensus? Until Copernicus came along there was. Theories are not facts. They are just models that fit the facts.

In terms of the modern scientific method, the word consensus to me is just as accurate as the statement in red below:

Out of the scientific revolution emerged the modern scientific method. This is where we get the terms hypothesis, theory and law from. It can be summarised as follows:

1) Make observations

2) Come up with an hypothesis to explain your observations.

3) Design a repeatable experiment to test your hypothesis. It has to be a reasonable test that would disprove the hypothesis if it were false. If you cannot design such an experiment, your hypothesis is not scientific.

4) If your hypothesis gets tested among the scientific community and widely accepted it becomes a theory.

5) When the scientific community stops arguing about your theory it becomes law.

6) Someone makes a new observation that contradicts the law, theory or hypothesis and it all starts again.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/history...fic-method.html

Jeez. No, it becomes an accepted theory. It does not need to be accepted to be a theory. I can come up with a theory on my own. It may not be right but it is still a theory. As I said before, science isn't done by consensus. It may make you feel validated for others to hold your beliefs but it isn't needed to be a theory and it doesn't make it right.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Something you just come up with is a hypothesis that will then need testing.

[GaryC 7]

So basically, when people get sick of talking about a theory, it becomes law? Wow!

I missed that gem. Where did you get this Steven? What a load of BS.

Something you just come up with is a hypothesis that will then need testing.

And if it fits the observed data it becomes a theory. It still may or may not be right. Re: my example of the earth centered universe.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

So basically, when people get sick of talking about a theory, it becomes law? Wow!

I missed that gem. Where did you get this Steven? What a load of BS.

Something you just come up with is a hypothesis that will then need testing.

And if it fits the observed data it becomes a theory. It still may or may not be right. Re: my example of the earth centered universe.

Observed data fits your theory of an earth centered universe??????

[Peikko 1,575]

Just out of interest. Those who do believe that global warming exists but do not believe that man has been a significant contributor in this, what do you think explains this sudden warming? What natural factors explain this?

What sudden warming? It's been a cold and wet summer so far.

Atmospheric warming, not weather. Interestingly, more rain is one of the byproducts of this warming in some areas.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Just out of interest. Those who do believe that global warming exists but do not believe that man has been a significant contributor in this, what do you think explains this sudden warming? What natural factors explain this?

What sudden warming? It's been a cold and wet summer so far.

Atmospheric warming, not weather. Interestingly, more rain is one of the byproducts of this warming in some areas.

poppycock

[Peikko 1,575]

Just out of interest. Those who do believe that global warming exists but do not believe that man has been a significant contributor in this, what do you think explains this sudden warming? What natural factors explain this?

What sudden warming? It's been a cold and wet summer so far.

Atmospheric warming, not weather. Interestingly, more rain is one of the byproducts of this warming in some areas.

poppycock

Oh, how the tables are turned eh?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So basically, Gary, you don't accept Global Warming theory as valid because - one, you don't believe it is widely accepted (no consensus) and two, because it is just a theory and therefore falsifiable?

In other words, Gary, what would it take for you to accept a scientific theory as valid?

[HAL 90000 0]

So basically, Gary, you don't accept Global Warming theory as valid because - one, you don't believe it is widely accepted (no consensus) and two, because it is just a theory and therefore falsifiable?

Steven, you are just as underqualified to speak on this subject as Gary is.

Frankly, it is the social phenomenon of uninformed and uneducated laymen such as the two of you debating this subject that has polluted the debate with unscientific conjecture and meaningless political posturing.

Just out of interest. Those who do believe that global warming exists but do not believe that man has been a significant contributor in this, what do you think explains this sudden warming? What natural factors explain this?

What sudden warming? It's been a cold and wet summer so far.

Atmospheric warming, not weather. Interestingly, more rain is one of the byproducts of this warming in some areas.

And that goes double for you.

[Peikko 1,575]

and 3) because there is an alternative theory that has been put forward to replace the 'man made' or 'largely attributable to man' theory because normally if there is an acceptable theory just saying, 'no I don't believe' it isn't enough to discredit the theory.

[HAL 9000 96]

OMG

Finally a troll I enjoy reading.

[Peikko 1,575]

So basically, Gary, you don't accept Global Warming theory as valid because - one, you don't believe it is widely accepted (no consensus) and two, because it is just a theory and therefore falsifiable?

Steven, you are just as underqualified to speak on this subject as Gary is.

Frankly, it is the social phenomenon of uninformed and uneducated laymen such as the two of you debating this subject that has polluted the debate with unscientific conjecture and meaningless political posturing.

Just out of interest. Those who do believe that global warming exists but do not believe that man has been a significant contributor in this, what do you think explains this sudden warming? What natural factors explain this?

What sudden warming? It's been a cold and wet summer so far.

Atmospheric warming, not weather. Interestingly, more rain is one of the byproducts of this warming in some areas.

And that goes double for you.

You can piss off, if you had anything original or worthwhile to say, you would have given yourself an original handle.

[HAL 9000 96]

[HAL 90000 0]

Original? My join date is before the imposter HAL 9000.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So basically, Gary, you don't accept Global Warming theory as valid because - one, you don't believe it is widely accepted (no consensus) and two, because it is just a theory and therefore falsifiable?

Steven, you are just as underqualified to speak on this subject as Gary is.

Frankly, it is the social phenomenon of uninformed and uneducated laymen such as the two of you debating this subject that has polluted the debate with unscientific conjecture and meaningless political posturing.

Listen, HAL from an alternate universe, I've consistently never argued over the science of GW, as I think that would be silly of me. However, it doesn't require a scientific background to have a basic understanding of how a scientific theory comes into being. That is at the heart of Gary's arguments against the theory of GW. He dismisses the theory because it a theory (falsifiable) and doesn't believe that theory is widely accepted among climate scientists. Both Gary and I, and any other regular joe's should be able to have at least a reasonable understanding of modern science. We owe it to ourselves and this planet.