<p>but if the scientists say it’s a theory than they’ve scientifically tested it.</p>
<p>theory: In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists “theory” and “fact” do not necessarily stand in opposition.</p>
<p>and the fact that it CAN be falsified means that if evidence comes up to falsify it, it will not be a theory anymore. therefore if it is still atheory, nothing has falsified it.</p>
<p>"Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:</p>
<p>z Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.</p>
<p>z The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.</p>
<p>z Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today’s computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling."</p>
<p>The letter was signed by 100 scientists around the world. It has nothing to do with a shoddy journalist. It was a letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations regarding the UN climate conference in Bali.</p>
<p>Well, at least I blew a hole in the “no doubt” theory. This list includes some pretty accomplished scientists… ;)</p>
<p>Accordingly, these scientists dispute the IPCC science process, argue against the existence of consensus and reject claims of abnormal climate change. Much new climate science research has also emerged since the last IPCC reports were written, undermining the official science. The IPCC reports, they say, are “materially outdated.”</p>
<p>It’s true that scientists can fall into groupthink-- the RNA-DNA debate comes to mind. However, citing 100 people with PhDs doesn’t necessarily say much either. “Theory,” in science at least, is not the same thing as it is in lay language. All a theory is is an explanation of facts. To say that global warming is “just a theory” is like saying that DNA is just a theory. Or gravity.</p>
<p>What’s more important than semantic debates, however, is asking if the theory we have is explaining the facts. That’s a much more interesting question than “is global warming a theory?”</p>
<p>I am reading a book right now called “State of Fear” by the author of Jurassic Park and Andromeda Strain that discusses global warming. Although this is a fiction book, he actually cites scientific references in footnotes throughout his book that seem to establish that global warming is not actually happening, and that the world is relatively unchanged, and may in fact be getting cooler in Antarctica. </p>
<p>I’m not quite done, and I’m not sure what to make of it, but it is quite shocking to me, since I am one of those people who is extremely concerned for the environment and food supply.</p>
<p>Interestingly, one thing that he seems to allege is that our Universities are no longer places where dissent is welcome, but rather they are places that feed information to the the information disseminators to cultivate a state of fear in our society. He points out that we live in a place where our basic needs of clean food, water, shelter, and adequate health care are met, yet we all are terrified of things that we can’t see, like germs. Again, not sure what to make of this. </p>
<p>I love these fiction books that seem to be non-fictional arguments. Greg Iles, Dan Brown, and Sarah Dunant are great authors who do this as well.</p>
<p>Michael Crichton is a novelist- not a scientific researcher
Loved Andromeda Strain when I was 12 & the kids liked Jurassic Park
But
I wouldn’t trust a novelist whose mission is to write techno thrillers to interpret data accurately and not to distort research for the sake of book sales.
:rolleyes:</p>
<p>Wow! I rest my case as far as the general perception of the globabl warming camp being “cultist”, shrill, and simply over-the-top in their indictment of all who disagree.</p>
<p>even if we (humans) are not causing global climate change by releasing huge amounts of fossil CO2 into the atmosphere… suppose the alarmists are right. Now ask yourself: does it do any harm to reduce the amount of CO2 we produce if there is no global effect? (No.) Does it do any harm to reduce the amount of CO2 if there is a global effect? (No.) Does it help to reduce the CO2 either way? (Yes–if there is–and No–if there’s not.)</p>
<p>So why on earth wouldn’t you hedge your bets by reducing CO2, just in case. It’s as if people are saying:
There’s a huge waterfall up ahead, but I’m not sure if it’s one mile or ten. Wouldn’t you stop paddling and be more cautious until you found out?</p>
<p>As for the connection between WalMart and global climate change: it has to do with the amount of energy China uses to make junk that is sold at WalMart. Sometime when you’re bored, go check the labels at WalMart and think about what they mean in terms of employment for Americans.</p>
<p>UCLAri, I do not disagree. In fact, I specifically said that there is little dispute that climate change happens. The dispute is really more as to providing a clear explanation (supported by scientific facts) as to what may be causing climate changes. Despite what some say, that “theory” is certainly not clear to everyone.</p>
<p>mamall, I agree with your asessment. Clearly the following statement is an attempt to end a discussion: “I choose not to argue the issue, as I know you are wrong.” :D</p>
<p>Who determines what experts belong to the IPCC? Why are the members of the IPCC any more qualified than the scientists who stray from the beliefs espoused in the IPCC report?</p>
<p>Polticians use the IPCC report for political gain. Plain and simple.</p>
<p>Well, I finished “State of Fear” last night, and the author has a whole section afterwards discussing his own views on Global Warming and climate change. He said that he researched for the book for 3 years and he has an appendix of resources. So apparently, although a work of fiction, he believes what he wrote. </p>
<p>I was telling my daughter about this today, and she said that her World and Government teacher told the class that he doesn’t believe in global warming, but did not elaborate on why.</p>
<p>It is sheer nonsense to speculate that scientists who do not agree with the IPCC report are any less qualified than the select group who do.</p>
<p>Corporations have supported a tremendous amount of very valuable reasearch for extremely competent scientists that has helped us all either directly or indirectly. The pharmaceutical companies, for example, have provided support for extremely important research in the medical field. Tremendous strides have been made in the areas of cancer treatment, diabetes care, etc., thanks to the support of these companies.</p>
<p>Who pays for the research that supports the scientists who belong to the IPCC ? How does this “eminent” group of scientists get funded? They may volunteer to review gobal warming research out of the goodness of their hearts, but most of these people do have to eat and support their families.</p>
<p>Welcome to the cc forum teacher22. Are you a parent as well as a teacher?</p>
<p>Couldn’t one speculate that in order for a “federally” funded program to continue, the outcome of the program can indeed be influenced by the politicians seeking continued funding for such programs?</p>