Disprove Global Warming!!!

[H3D]

I highly doubt the human race would have evolved if the world was covered in a sheet of ice. Oh, but wait! Evolution is no more than a theory too...guess we should just chalk it up to opinion

Sorry to go off topic but in science a "theory" is just an accepted opinion. It's not something that has been proven with scientific data. The theory of evolution is just an opinion and there has been little to no evidence proving it to be true.

If someone proves it is a man-made threat: great. If not: great. But calling it all "opinion" (or point of view, whatever...) is a really naive way to go about thinking. And since this thread is supposed to be about collecting scientific data...well, I can understand why Inka may be getting upset.

The main problem with global warming is that the only scientific data is that we know the world has gotten slightly warmer over the last 100 years compared to the last 10,000 as mentioned above. No one has proven scientifically that there is a specific cause for this warming. And very few like to point out how irrelevant that temperature change is when compared to the last million years. The reason people get so upset over this issue is that people use this data to create theory about the future. Other than the limited data about the temperature change the entire topic is really just based on opinion.

 

[Native American]

Sorry to go off topic but in science a "theory" is just an accepted opinion. It's not something that has been proven with scientific data.

Correct.

The main problem with global warming is that the only scientific data is that we know the world has gotten slightly warmer over the last 100 years compared to the last 10,000 as mentioned above.

Half correct. Your numbers for the last century make sense, but they are not scientific data. It's historic data. No hypothesis was forwarded for a mechanism, so the scientific method wasn't used. I think this is what you meant though?

Also, since that time where enough temperature data has been recorded to get an aggregate temperature for the planet (starting in the middle 1800's), the world has cooled about a degree.

Another item that causes me to wrinkle my brow is that we have CO2, which is still a trace gas in the atmosphere, being looked at closely as the "culprit" of global warming. Nobody is looking at the obvious opposite...is the warming trend the cause of the carbon cycle to shift to the gas side of the equation?

Simply saying that because one event happened within a convenient time frame of another does not make it the causal agent. To make the assertion, then gather information without a hypothesis is simply trash science.

Since we are on the topic, what is THE most abundant greenhouse gas in our atmosphere today? I'll give a hint...it's held the #1 spot in terms of the highest partial pressure for far longer than any of you can imagine, and it is not a trace gas by any means.

OF

 

[Slappy*McFish]

Nice post, Native American. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the air's own humidity(water vapor) plays a huge role in keeping things nice and warm. Is this what you're referring to? Not really a 'gas', though...I agree.

 

[Wycco]

Sorry to go off topic but in science a "theory" is just an accepted opinion. It's not something that has been proven with scientific data. The theory of evolution is just an opinion and there has been little to no evidence proving it to be true.

What you are describing is a hypothesis not a theory. The definition you lay out for theory is what the "lay" person uses in every day life to describe what theory means and in no way correlates to what "theory" means to a scientific community.

The misuse of the word "theory" is often dug up by people with little or no understanding of science to attempt to invalidate a scientific theory.

In science to be called a theory instead of a hypothesis means it has to have a major conscensus among scientists. It must have been backed up by data repeatedly. Basically in science- to be called a theory instead of a hypothesis it has to be generally accepted as a truth.

The only difference between a "law" and a "theory" in science is that a "law" we don't specifically know "why" something happened.

That doesn't mean that a theory or a law in science can't be wrong- although usually the only time they "change" is when we discover something new and understand we didn't know the full picture before hand.


Nonetheless, it is important to understand that in SCIENCE theory is not the same as street parlance- and if something is labeled "theory" then it means that there experimental data and lots of evidence to back it up... otherwise it's just a hypothesis.

 

[Inka4040]

The theory of evolution is just an opinion and there has been little to no evidence proving it to be true.

Wait, wait, wait... What?!?!? Are you serious with this statement? We can see speciation with our own eyes, happening in real, recordable time. Genetic sequencing has only bolstered the argument for the validity of evolution as a theory, and we as hobbyists of all people, who can see genetic diversification and selection happen within our own tanks, are hardly the ones to be arguing this point. As far as I'm concerned, evolution is fact until a more plausible and well backed up point of view comes about.



If you want to teach my kids that the earth is 6000 years old, I reserve the right to teach your kids that the sky is just the inside of a giant tortoise shell. Creation myths are just that... MYTH! And to give credence to one necessitates that all of them be covered.

Sorry for derailing my own thread, but I wasn't about to let that inference go unchallenged.

 

[Wycco]

Sorry for derailing my own thread, but I wasn't about to let that inference go unchallenged.

LOL... I resisted the bait myself- I had to go back and change what I wrote... I wasn't going to be the one to derail your thread... but it's your thread to do with as you wish!

I decided to slate my thirst for blood by following the "it's only a theory" argument instead.

If people understood that in science "theory" = "scientifically accepted truth" I don't think people would use the "It's only a theory" rule... at least, that's my hypothesis.

 

[Star_Rider]

So is Global Warming a Theory?

if so.. it can change or do we have the whole picture?



It wasn't long ago that Giant squid were a myth.




Science is ever changing.

:evil_lol:

 

[Inka4040]

Giant squids crossed the line into the realm of realty when proof was found. Without proof, it'd still inhabit the same realm as sasquatch and flying spaghetti monsters. Who's to say that they don't exist with certainty, but then again, it's much easier to prove unequivocally that something does exist than to prove that it doesn't.

 

[Star_Rider]

Giant squids crossed the line into the realm of realty when proof was found. Without proof, it'd still inhabit the same realm as sasquatch and flying spaghetti monsters. Who's to say that they don't exist with certainty, but then again, it's much easier to prove unequivocally that something does exist than to prove that it doesn't.

boy, that's a fact(ain't that the truth)

 

[RedDawg]

everything about global warming is theory because they are predictions of the future not fact yet hahah ahahha hha you got esp mang?


quote quote i think we should all listen to this man after all global warming was nothing till he made a movie and put it in theatres ====
""It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it. - Al Gore, Vice President""