Any responses to "AGW is just a theory"?

1. " a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena." is a reasonable definition. It must be disprovable (ie it must address challenges) ; it must make predictions ; it may include "laws" (but there are very few real laws - eg Newtons Laws are not in fact laws) . Laws NEVER become theories ; theories cannot be proven , only disproven

2. In general talk, theory is used in same way as "hypothesis" or "vague guess"

3. Plate tectonic theory ; theory of gravitation (and there is no law of gravity) ; germ theory ; quantum theory ....... many others

4. There is nothing "higher" than a theory

IMO many of the climate change denier industry claims are borrowed straight from the evolution denier industry :

- the "just a theory" nonsense

- the corrupt scientists fabricating data as part of some global paranoid conspiracy

- personifiying the science in one person then attacking the person (eg Charles Darwin /Al Gore)

- pretending scientifically illiterate cranks are great scientists (eg Kent Hovind , "Pretend Lord" Monckton)

- claims of corruption in peer review process stops dissenting papers

- claims major dissent amongst scientists

- claims its undemocratic to not let students decide (groups wanting to stop teaching of evolution usually also want to stop teaching climate science)

- slippery slope nonsense (AGW leads to a socialist NWO; evolution leads to amoral anarchy)

- pretending the science is solely integral with no impact in other areas - eg to deny climate change requires that you deny a large part of physics, chemistry, geology, geography ; similar for evolution

Mathew --

>>Just a theory? It's not even a proper hypothesis<<

AGW theory is not even proper chicken soup, either, But, then, neither is gravity, electricity, atomic theory, molecular theory, or nuclear theory. Maybe you can name a scientific theory that is a proper hypothesis.

Better yet, why don't you give us an example of a hypothesis that a scientist might use in studying AGW. - and I mean a real scientific hypothesis, not some trivial or worthless example from a Google search.

Let me warn you: There is nothing - absolutely nothing - in the entire scientific process that is more difficult than defining a good hypothesis.

Or, it would be more informative if you would answer this question:

Why do scientifically ignorant Deniers pretend to know something about science and why do they think no one will notice that they are stupid? Why did you say this:

>>Just a theory? It's not even a proper hypothesis<<

even though you don't know what a scientific theory is, you don't know what a scientific hypothesis is, and, finally, you don't know what science is?

=======

Mike L --

>>Gravity could be acceleration of the Earth in orbit or the still unfound graviton .<<

WTF are you talking about? How is the earth accelerating in orbit? DO you mean centripetal acceleration - which can be affected by gravity, but does not cause gravity?

Why didn't you mention Einstein's General Relativity Theory which explains gravity in terms of curved space?

Let me answer that one. You didn't mention it because you don't know anything about it - just like you don't know anything about gravity, the earth's orbit, physics, theories, hypotheses, and science.

Why would you say something as stupid and full of lies, like this:

>>AGW is a theory based on badly drawn graphs and computer models . It stopped 16 years ago and some people think taxes could change the climate instead of filling some cronies pockets<<

when you have to know that your are a scientifically illiterate nitwit who doesn't have a fcking clue what you are talking about?

=====

Sage --

Why bltch at her? You don't know understand anything about science - so you must not have read (or read but did not understand) the definition you gave her.

People often say "just a theory" to discredit scientific information that conflicts with their closely held beliefs based on ideology. Of course, there are many conflicting beliefs systems and ideologies, and it's impossible to say which one might be correct as there is really no way to test them.

In science, the best theory is the one that explains all the evidence but it is not given the status of "absolute truth". AGW is the best theory that explains all the observations about why the Earth is warming, and though some details may be modified by further research, there are no alternate theories that cannot be easily disproven.

1.. A theory is a description of how scientists describe how something works. Theory does not mean unproven and is not promoted to a "fact" or a "law" if and when it is proven.

2. In casual conversation, "theory" does mean unproven. A more accurate word would be hypothesis.

3. Every scientific "law" or "fact." Examples include the germ theory of disease, the law of gravity, the laws of thermodynamics and E=mc^2, the basis of nuclear power.

4. There is a lot of evidence for AGW, such as the fact that it is happening

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/images/wa...

And we are causing it

http://c1planetsavecom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/fil...

theory means first process of experiment about anything so it is most important in every field . so science too need theory and without theory science too cannot do any inventory.

This is the moron level of anti-science denialism. 90% of it is based on pure ignorance of basic historical facts. The THEORY of AGW was formulated over a century ago. The serious likelihood of the theory becoming reality was established half a century ago. How, how soon, and with which consequences, was well-developed a quarter a century ago. Fifteen years it was clear that all of this was not just highly probable, but with extremely high likelihood ALREADY starting to happen. All of these discoveries and developments regarding global climate were as solidly established in mainstream peer-reviewed science as evolution, continental drift, germ causation of disease, or any other major lasting finding in science over the past 400 years, and it was all written up in Spencer Weart's definite history of a decade ago. Your endless efforts to reason with these morons makes about as much sense as trying explain Faulkner or Proust to kindergarten children. If they can't understand a simple one page historical timeline of climate science (some can, but for them there is no point in your endless parade of questionaire-questions here, mostly "answered" over and over by the same hard core anti-science liars anyway: you'd be far more effective to just give the merely uninformed the timeline), they will probably be too stupid to ever really learn climate science, or ever become immune from denialist mythology. Never in human history has the dumbest 10% of any population been able to really grasp most of the most complicated issues of the day. AGW is no different in that sense.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200602/bac...

Well clearly if you take the answers of pindar & sagebush at face value they have no answer so that tells you what you want to know. Pindar tries that old and rather stale denier tactic of mis-direction, I wonder that he really thinks that fools anyone, deniers have used that one far to much when they can't actually answer a question, it only makes one person look foolish and it's not the person asking the question.

As for the question whether Pindar wants to admit it or not evolution is a prime example of a scientific theory. In the scientific meaning of the phrase it is a work in progress as we are still discovering new information developing new ways to gather data and better techniques that build on the past work of others. this would apply to any field of science astronomy, medicine etc.

I see no reason to cover old ground as this has been covered many times before the wiki page has an excellent quote on the subject

"Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative."

Frankly denier blathering on the subject just proves my point, they have no idea what they are talking about.

The theory of relativity is a complex theory and has certainly been tweaked over the years as equipment like computers have made calculations easier and device like the telescopes and other instruments have vastly improved since Einstein first put forward his theory. The same applies to evolution as methods and equipment that Darwin could not even imagine have come along, science always moves forward and while we think of ourselves as advanced, I'm sure what we are doing now will be thought of in the same way 100 or 200 years from now as they have advanced even further.

None of this proves (or dis-proves AGW) but based on the real evidence we have at the moment, from multiple fields of science and from many multiple groups around the world it is happening and our release of Co2 is the primary cause. Deniers have now been trying to counter this for about a decade and to date have presented nothing but an ever changing stream of nonsense and conspiracy that have in scientific circles fooled nobody, deniers in fact have given up trying to fool scientists and simply try to fool the general public in an effort to slow political action, a rather dangerous course given what the mob has done historically to those who have lied to it.

If you look at the main source of all modern scientific discovery, peer reviewed scientific journals AGW as a theory has built steadily over many decades through several generations of scientists, compare that to denial that has had virtually nothing in scientific print and instead resort to blogs and privately funded books to spread their BS. There is a reason deniers here keep trying to reference religion, communists, nazi's, greens, Al Gore etc it's because they have nothing else the science is not on their side and I think some of them are even starting to see that. Over the last decade we have seen just the first slow start of what AGW will do in temperatures, ice melt, sea level rise. These effects are are not going to be affected by pretend petitions or the rants of English Lords or pretend meteorologists, they will keep growing. We have just come through the warmest decade in the modern record while denier try to pretend we are cooling. Highly sensitive and accurate instruments measure sea level and they show it is rising, deniers pretend this is not the case. Deniers pretend the Arctic is not melting when solid evidence shows it is, houses in Siberia are simply sinking as permafrost melts some of these are over a century old.

Theory?

What happened one second before "Big Bang"?

I think that some of us use them to prove that certain things are possible and some things aren't possible. Hence the probability issue. When 97% of the climate scientists believe that CO2 is warming the planet, does that mean that they all agree that the planet is warming at a unsustainable rate and is causing irreparable damage? I doubt it. When we throw the word "is" into the equation that is an absolute result. Theories don't deal in absolutes. To say the whole of the earth's climate "is" absolutely changing due to excess greenhouses gases is based on false pretenses. The "Theory of Climate Change Due To Natural Variability" isn't discussed by AGW theorists in an open forum like this and to rule it out doesn't give the science much credibility.

Here's part of your answer to one of my questions that I see you have since changed :

"..... And "proof" is kind of a meaningless concept in science. For example, I cannot *prove* that the thing holding up my computer is a desk, rather than a virtual reality projection or a cleverly disguised shapeshifting alien........"

Of course you could have thrown in a theory that a cabinet shop or furniture shop built that table, but for some reason you ruled it out or kept that theory out of your equation.

A new theory exists in our Government - "We don't have enough money to pay our bills so we will just print more Theory" - This theory sits right next to "The Greenhouse Gas Theory" on President Obama's desk.

A theory, just like gravity.

We can just endure their scientific illiteracy as they constantly make fools of themselves