Do folks realize that AGW and GW are considered THEORIES by all of the Scientists? Not Fact but Hypothesis?

.

@ Gary F - yes, they are theories and here's how you can separate them from BS theories like catastrophic global warming - nobody ever needed billions of dollars to argue for them. There were accepted on their merits.

What kind of a vague, pseudo-theory has tens of billions of dollars lavished on it and still isn't proven?

------------------------------------------------------

EDIT @ Gary F

A thousand years? The ancient Greeks knew it was round TWO thousand years ago. The ancient Indians, a thousand year before that (see the Shatapatha Brahman).

The thing is, it doesn't matter that you're wrong by around a thousand years, but it does matter that the earth being round can be proven. Gravity can be proven. Can you prove that a trace gas will result in catastrophic global warming. No. Hypothesis.

.

Not everything called science is hard hard science. Your hard sciences are characterized by a strict adherence to the scientific method. 1. Observations about the natural world are made and based on those observations a hypothesis is formed. 2. Additional research is done and measurements and experiments are devised to test the various elements of the hypothesis. 3. The results the experiments and measurements are evaluated against the hypothesis. If the hypothesis does not hold up it may be modified or discarded an a new hypothesis formed. If a new hypothesis is formed then go back to step 2. If the hypothesis holds up then move on to phase 4. 4. Research is done to identify possible alternate explanations for what was observed in phase 3. Once alternate explanations are identified additional measurements and experiments are devised to test the alternate explanations thereby disproving the hypothesis. If an alternate explanation is verified the hypothesis may be revised or thrown out and a new hypothesis formed - pack to phase 2. IF measurements and experiments disprove all the identified alternate explanations then it is customary to publish a paper on the research for review by others. 5. A research paper is published with sufficient detail to allow others to attempt to the same - or different experiments to verify the hypothesis and or possible alternate explanations. If the results cannot be reproduced or new alternate explanations identified then the hypothesis is considered questionable and it is back to phase 2. If the results can be reproduced and no alternate explanations can be identified and tested the hypothesis may then be considered a theory. 6 After a theory has been around for a fair amount of time and survives additional scrutiny it generally is accepted as being valid. Your example astrophysics/cosmology would be classified as a theoretical science, as would quantum physics, climate science, paleo-sciences and others. A theoretical science differs from your hard sciences is that portions of the hypothesis are not testable through observation, measurement or experimentation and as result mathematical models, based in part on objective evidence and experimentation and in part on assumptions that lack the benefit of being tested and verified. The greater the number of unproven (or in some cases unprovable) assumptions the less reliable the hypothesis. An unfortunate problem with theoretical sciences is that unlike hard sciences, a hypothesis that has been around a while, even though lacking the vetting of a hypothesis in hard sciences is often referred to as a theory (even though it would not raise beyond the level of hypothesis in any of the hard sciences). Soft sciences use the scientific method as with hard sciences however there are some variables that are subjective and cannot be definitively objectified. Psychology, sociology, economics, pharmacology and some aspects of medicine all fall into the category because no matter how rigorous the measurements and experimental protocols the subjectivity of the human element cannot be escaped. In these sciences a hypothesis graduates to a theory if statistically significant results can be replicated, and a statistically significant percentage of predictions based upon the hypothesis appear to be validated. As result, when a scientist says theory, one should ask what field of science because a theory in the hard sciences is very different than a theory in the theoretical or the soft sciences. Hard sciences can be objectively tested either through observation, experimentation or measurement and are either verified or refuted. Soft sciences can be tested through observation, experimentation or measurement but because of uncontrollable subjective elements all theories have statistical margins for error. Theoretical sciences are based in part on objective elements but to varying degrees are also based upon unproven assumptions and mathematical constructs - sometimes several layers deep (i.e. assumptions and math based on extrapolations based on more assumptions and math etc.) and should be approached with a healthy level of skepticism.

Do you know that gravity and electricity are theories? Ever heard of atomic / nuclear theory; or molecular theory; or germ theory?

=====

Meadow F --

Oh yeah?

Biological evolution is fighting the same fight against the creation mythology of illiterate Bronze and Iron Age tribes of Semitic sheep herders that AGW is fighting against the AGW-denier political agenda.

Deniers are no different from them, or the people who spent 1,000 years - after science had proved the earth’s spherical shape – attacking science and insisting that the earth was flat; or the people who spent

300 years – after science had proved that the earth orbits the sun – attacking the Copernican Theory and insisting that the earth was the center of the universe. Of course, the Catholic Church did “forgive” Galileo - in 1992.

====

Meadow F --

How do you prove gravity? Even Newton's descriptive law (equation) has a variable constant. And how did Einstein turn Newton's "law" into a theory?

How do you know the earth is round and that scientists and the government have not tampered with the data and faked the photographic documentation?

Prove that the night sky is not a dome with little lights put there by God.

In any case, I have never used the word theory. Look through my answers. I always use hypothesis - but that is just because I'm pathologiclly conservative in my interpretation and application of the scientific method. It's doesn't trip me out when others use the word theory, though.

Every time the AGW hypothesis is tested, we fail to reject it. We have however, rejected the hypothesis tests for all known natural forcings.

====

Erin --

Thank you, and you are welcome. If you think scientific arguments are fun, I tip my cap to you ma'am.

If Meadow F was stupid, I wouldn't waste the time sparring with her, but she's not. I don't understand her, but what the Hell, eh?

So are evolution, atoms, and germs.

A scientific theory is of course a very well supported hypothesis that makes testable predictions. Being a theory means something is almost certainly correct.

Do you know that "theory" and "hypothesis" are not synonymous in science?

A hypothesis is an idea which has some evidence to support it but is undergoing more testing.

A theory is an established law, or set of laws, that work in all instances and are useful to predict new phenomena.

<<Do folks realize that AGW and GW are considered THEORIES by all of the Scientists? Not Fact but Hypothesis?>>

After telling us that it is a theory, she tells us that it is a hypothesis.

BTW, *all* facts in science are "theories".

<<Even Phil Jones acknowledges that recent warming is not statistically significant and the science is not settled. >>

Jones says that the science IS settled.

Wrong. Theory trumps Hypothesis, these things have a heirarchy, learn it.

Paul said:

<Even Phil Jones acknowledges that recent warming is not statistically significant and the science is not settled. >>

Jones says that the science IS settled.

Actually no.

N - When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean?

It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670....

Yes it is mainly journalists and activists who spin human made global warming into something other than speculation.

Even Phil Jones acknowledges that recent warming is not statistically significant and the science is not settled.

Those science wannabees who claim that a theory is not a hypothesis need to read a scientific dictionary instead of getting their vocabulary from activist blogs.

Scientific Theories are based on facts, they are not wild guesses.

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn1...