Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and the Yahoo Answers website is now in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
What theories of science will be attacked next?
First evolution, now greenhouse gas theory (global warming)... what's next, e-mc2?
e=mc2: 103 years later, Einstein's proven right
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081120/sc_afp/scienc...
Or maybe someone will dispute gravity?
Heretic – Very revealing, thanks.
“The bottom line on this insistence that nothing can be stationary in the universe is simple: viz., The Bible says the Earth is stationary and the Bible is the implacable enemy of secularist (and allegedly secularist!) ideologies in all their disguises...including most particularly the "secular science" disguise!!”
So the ultimate goal of science is…?
“The goal of this diabolical game plan has been to make LIES triumphant over TRUTH in all areas of man's "knowledge", and thereby make Satan-- the god of this world”
Given statements like that I have a hard time understanding Christianity as monotheism, but perhaps portraying Christianity as monotheism was just part of some devilish plot?
“just an arbitrary preference based at bottom on the rudimentary assumption that the Earth rotates and therefore the entire system must have a whole set of radically different explanations from what naturally flow in the Geocentricity Model as the stars are actually observed to go around the Earth every 24 hours....”
Wow, the stars DO appear to rotate around the earth don’t they? Perhaps the earth IS stationary… time to throw out science!
Some-yank –
“one can only concur that it is typical that only questionable theories are disputed.”
No, in our daily life the theories that challenge the status quo are the most heavily disputed. In science every theory is put forth with its basis exposed, inviting challenges and modifications that improve our understanding.
“Evolution (and it is just a theory) is relatively new as compared with a few thousand years of documented belief in creationism.”
Which of the many thousands of mankind’s creation myths are you referring to?
http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html
Surely their diversity proves that no one of them is true, but the fact that they all exist does seem to indicate that mankind likes to explain things.
“That which evolved had to be created in the first place.”
If you mean that all that exists must have a creator, then the creator itself must have a creator, ad infinitum. You may have just invented the ultimate polytheism!
Samsmartkid – “You forget these theories have stood the test of TIME.”
By that logic, most creation myths still have followers today and we can abandon science altogether.
“i) It is based almost entirely on computer models”
Not at all. Evidence includes millions of years of paleontological data, the models only attempt to understand the overall system and including its future direction and rate of change.
”ii) every theory must have a set of circumstances that would prove it false.”
I don’t understand that reasoning, but it would be easy to disprove greenhouse gas theory. Just point to times in the paleontological record when elevated CO2 levels did not result in warming. Even one! Surely in the past few billion years there would be one case? The lack of the "real" warming factor (if it's not CO2) would accidentally coincide with elevated CO2 and an event like the Permian Triassic extinction would have been caused by cooling instead of warming. Show me one example.
Eric c – “The theory that oscillations of oceans and the sun do not play any role temperature trends.”
Contrary to your understanding, climate scientists such as NASA’s Dr. James Hansen regularly reference ENSO ocean current influences and solar influences.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20080114_GI...
You know that. So why do you propose, incorrectly, that either of your claims is part of AGW theory?
James E –
Thanks for the new link to this fact, although it’s not exactly news:
“The oil industry in all its guises would obviously like to believe, and would like the public to believe, that greenhouse warming has been greatly exaggerated, and exploits any genuine scientific differences to undermine the credibility of the climatologists.”
The rest of the article seems highly speculative and that sentence is provided in the context of qualifying the assumptions made, which you nevertheless cling tenaciously to. Solar output is well known to have a suspected role in natural forcings (Milankovich cycles, etc), but solar output diverges from recent global temperature trends, revealing the involvement of other factors. Thus science does not disregard solar forcing at all, it embraces it but must look elsewhere to other factors to explain recent trends. Capice?
As for “their mathematical models are unable to reflect the real world variations.”
In round numbers if El Nino (ENSO) yanks temperatures in a 2 degree range of +/- 1 degree while global warming adds 0.1 degree on average per decade, who would expect climate models to “predict” weather in any given year, or for that matter, ten years (PDO)? Why do prominent “skeptic” scientists like Roy Spencer require Dr. James Hansen’s (CO2 global warming) climate model to provide a best fit for ENSO and PDO influence on observed temperatures?
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-glo...
YOU provided that evidence!! You can certainly keep posting “weather proves the earth can’t be changing gradually” rationale if you like, but the relative magnitude of the two factors reveals the argument as specious. The evidence you provide repeatedly seems to refute your own reasoning.
Ben O – Where is AGW theory “blind”? As pointed out to eric c and James E, the science has simply considered all options and discounted a few factors for the recent past (125 years). Have you no evidence to support your belief in opposition to it?
Jim z – “Do you even have any concept of what "greenhouse gas theory" is.”
Yes, I suspect that my two years of physics at U.C. Berkeley gave me a reasonable foundation from which to understand the theory. What part of it confuses you?
If your scientific background gives you a solid basis from which to evaluate the facts, why don’t you challenge the misconceptions such as “the earth is cooling” that make skeptics look silly by association?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ak2Cj...
Are you the same jim z that is a geologist, but doesn’t disclose the full range of scientific explanations for evidence of time lags between temperature rise and CO2 increase?
Pop quiz: As a geologic scientist, how many geologic examples can you provide where CO2 increase did NOT correspond with an increase in temperatures? Go on, search the past few billion years and provide one example.
You’ve said, “CO2 helps moderate temperatures and warms the coldest winter and night temperatures.” So you’re saying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, providing warming?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ajd8t...
By the way, what industry employs the most geologists? Oil and gas exploration? Who is your employer? Does AGW represent a personal threat to you because it might result in a flood of unemployed geologists on the job market (possibly including yourself)?
I regularly evaluate skeptical science (what little of it exists):
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ag6yw...
It’s clear to me that pursuing CO2 controls is a fool’s errand while China and India fail to participate, and there are much les costly and proven effective ways to approach the problem, but it’s unfortunate that the people advocating avoiding CO2 controls do so on the basis of scientific omission and cheerleading rants.
16 Answers
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
You better be glad there was some unorthodox thinkers. Otherwise (Keeling) would never achieved his status nor (Einstein). Competitive theories either dispel or explain. (JS) isn't that one of the major functions of science? I would venture a non statistical guess, there's more unknowns in creation then the known.
Here's a little humor to add to your day.
- RowArkLv 41 decade ago
You forget these theories have stood the test of TIME. The only way for this theory to incortrovertibly pass this test is to wait for the period AGW proponents are saying will pass.
Plus, this theory in not a very good theory scientifically speaking, for a couple of reassons.
i) It is based almost entirely on computer models, which are based on each other, and heavily flawed, so they make the same mistakes
ii) It is unfalsifiable.all sorts of differing effects (e.g floods AND droughts) are being predicted, so how to tell if it's false? every theory must have a set of circumstances that would prove it false. Else, it's like saying there are a million other universes which we can't detect or communicate with. no? Prove me wrong!
- ?Lv 71 decade ago
It's hard for a simple person like me to doubt the existence of Gravity. I can easily test it (standing here on Earth) by holding an egg..... letting it drop ..... watching it break.
It's not quite as straight-forward when talking about 'Man-Did-It' global warming. There are too many holes in so-called AGW theory. I find that disturbing.
- DavidLv 71 decade ago
At risk of being grouped along with the AGW skeptics, I always thought relativity and quantum mechanics were not compatible with one another, and that a "theory of everything" would likely prove Einstein's theories to be wrong or at least incomplete...
Plus, no one really knows what gravity is, why it is so weak or why it should even exist at all. This is an argument I have often used to challenge the skeptics who say AGW is not "proven". Why should we demand proof for AGW when something as fundamental and universally accepted as gravity does not even have a proven scientific basis? We can calculate it sure, but there is no good reason for why the next body of mass we find will not be affected by it, other than the fact that every mass we've found to date has been.
Source(s): Randall: A law is just a name we give to something we don't understand. Gravity is based on observational evidence (much like a certain other hot topic around here), not predicted by any theory. Same with law of conservation of energy or the laws of thermodynamics--there is no theoretical reason for why they should exist. They're safely called "laws" because we have never found any exceptions to them, but that could technically change tomorrow. - Anonymous1 decade ago
Actually the AGW hypotheses is more on a par in provability with astrology and flat earth thinking while the skeptical view is more in line with Darwin and the big bang. One point here is that the mild climate optimum we are currently in happens on a regular basis and is only unusual in that is much colder than normal optimums and has been much slower than normal in getting this warm. What is unusual and has no documentation to support it is the AGW hypotheses and the divergent global warming and adverse climate change religions that have sprung from it. All historical and scientific evidence shows that the climate variations we have experienced over the last 150 years are well within the documented variations of the last 8,000 years of human existence on this world.
About climate optimums
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
About climate minimums
http://www.stsci.edu/stsci/meetings/lisa3/beckmanj...
And absolutely none of the claims made by the promoters of AGW can be supported by the hypotheses they have presented because their mathematical models are unable to reflect the real world variations. They are unable to track the variations in climate because they assume Co2 is a major causative factor in the climate warming when it is actually a minor side affect of it. Other science professionals who are looking for real causes are beginning to find them, but these efforts of hard working scientists are not getting good coverage because they show there is no cause for panic while the AGW promoters desire panic to push their one world political agenda.
Source(s): Added thought, the AGW hypotheses has less documentation to prove it than the 6,000 year Old World that a certain Anglican bishop who knew nothing of science theorized. So it is needed for those who believe in it to find a way to really prove it to at least the extent that all current documentation proves the business as normal, no reason for panic position of the skeptics. - Anonymous1 decade ago
Probably only the theories that were advanced specifically to support an agenda - like white racial superiority, male gender superiority, and CFCs causing the ozone hole.
PS - gravity is a law.
And the only reason AGW has, despite the lack of evidence, such a following, is precisely that it IS politically convenient.
- Good AnswersLv 71 decade ago
Did you mean "Which" theories? Do you not think it farcical to compare disputing natural temperature shifts with gravity? As for which theory may next be disputed, one can only concur that it is typical that only questionable theories are disputed. As for evolution, consider that the most accepted theories are those that have a long documented history of acceptance. Evolution (and it is just a theory) is relatively new as compared with a few thousand years of documented belief in creationism. That which evolved had to be created in the first place. Gravity?...well that is a weighty subject indeed.
- JimZLv 71 decade ago
When Einstein put forth his theory of relativity, it disproved much of Newtonian physics. Remember Newton with the apple falling on his head (gravity right). Einstein's theories of gravity overturned Newton. Does that mean Einstein is right. Certainly he was more right. I agree with Dawai though that there is still much to learn. Evolution has always been attacked. The theory of plate tectonics has been "attacked" even though as a geologist I know it is certainly true. As a scientist, I know that evolution is certainly true. I also know that much of geologic history is under attack by ignorant leftists that pretend to be scientists. Do you even have any concept of what "greenhouse gas theory" is. Do be ignorant and gullible. Inform yourself.
- evans_michael_yaLv 61 decade ago
Try any number of theories proposed by the "science" of Astrology.
If a "scientist" were to theorize man is responsible for gravity, I'd expect his theories to be disputed as well. I'd also expect believers of such a theory to point to evidence of gravity as proof of their pet theory.
- eric cLv 51 decade ago
The theory that oscillations of oceans and the sun do not play any role temperature trends.
