Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobendres
I don’t believe it’s settled science. There are many scientists who dispute the notion that mankind has an effect on climate. Unfortunately - the topic is a third rail - which prevents an honest and apolitical discussion on it. For example - being labeled a climate change denier. Always a label
|
"Settled" is normally applied to law, and Facts and Theories are applied to Science. The only thing in science that could be termed "settled" are facts. And there are very few FACTs in science.
Climate change is a theory. Theories do not claim to be facts they claim to predict things based on evidence. The predictions are not necessarily 100% accurate, in fact, they most likely are not. But they are accurate enough to be used. Nuclear bombs are based on theories, not facts. The theory works well enough in predicting what will happen that they tend to go off with a big bang; the electricity that runs powers your lights, powers EVs, etc., etc., are all based on theory, not facts. We do not KNOW that there is anything called an Electron - but the theory that defines electrons works well enough to be used - daily by everyone.
The range in science is a hypothesis, theory, and fact. A hypothesis is just a little more than an idea, a guess at what might be causing something. You then test the hypothesis with experiments or data collection and analysis and see if it is matched the guess. If enough matches or enough results are predicted correctly, it is elevated to theory. When a theory is ALWAYS correct in predicting results and accurately explains the results, it is then elevated to FACT.
If the Climat change THEORY were accurate enough to predict with 100% accuracy, it would not be theory, Because it does not even claim to be fact, that means there can be other theories that attempt to explain what is happening"
Therefore, by the very nature of being a theory, the certainly will be other scientists that disagree with it; that is exactly how science works. "
Sometimes a very small number of scientists (maybe even one) come up with a better theory, and the scientific community disagrees with them. When this happens, it is up to the Scientist that disagrees with the generally accepted theory to prove it WRONG or to prove their theory is more accurate. If they manage to do either, the scientific community will eventually accept their new theory.
So far, the "scientists" that disagree with the Climate Change theory have neither proven it wrong nor provided an alternative theory. They have simply stated they don't believe it.
On the other hand, between 80% and 90% of the scientists In the entire world, not just the US, believe the theory works and is a valid theory,
The FACT that the theory is accepted around the world and not just in the US makes it hard for me to believe this is political - well, except here in the US, where we make anything scientific into a political issue.
I apologize for being long-winded; I know the desired post here is short - preferably one-liners - and should be entirely based on COMMON SENSE.