LittleBigMan

You misquote what I said, once again.

Once again, you're confusing politics with science.

Again you're mixing politics with science. I didn't take any "side."

No, it is not all about politics. It's about finding the truth apart from politics.

Andy Dreisch

LBM, finding the "truth" requires scientific research, in your view. (We can debate the "truth" that results from scientific research, but not now.) Scientific research requires $$$$. Allocating $$$$ (a scarce resource) requires decisions. People make decisions. Politics is about people. Politics is therefore inextricably involved in the truth finding process, i.e., scientific research.

If "[t]he main problem with this thread is the mixing of science and politics" in your view, then how is my critique of your "notion that science is divorced from politics ..." a misquote, as you say?

As to whether there's a "your side" to this, what part of this statement do you disagree?

LittleBigMan

"Global warming" is a theory. Theories must be proven by scientific study before being accepted as fact. You cannot prove or disprove a theory by debate. You are still trying to debate a theory before all the facts are in.

I do not say that global warming is a fact. I say there is enough evidence to warrant continued investigation. The fact that you say it's a hoax does not prove or disprove it.

Again, you cannot prove or disprove the global warming theory through debate, as you are trying to do.

Andy Dreisch

Thanks, LBM. We agree that GW is a theory. And I actually agree with you that one can't prove or disprove a theory. Finally, I also agree that continued investigation is warranted.

Jupe

The word theory in the scientific sense means something quite different and quite a bit more substantial than it's use in common language. In order to get to be called a theory in science, an idea must already have quite a weight of evidence behind it.

Another source of confusion is that often the same name is given to a theory and to the observable facts that the theory seeks to explain. For instance, evolution is both a fact and a theory. It is a fact that evolution has ocurred and evolutionary theory seeks to explain this phenomenon with natural selection, founder effect, genetic drift, etc.

I use evolution here as an example only because it is a subject about which I know much more than global warming.

Jupe

I just thought of another more obvious example:

Gravity is a natural phenomenon that we all observe every day. Gravitational theory seeks to explain this natural phenomenon. Nobody suggests that gravitational theory is 'just a theory' so gravity may or may not really exist.

Alexey

Scientific research is not always a tedious costly effort. Sometimes a scientist makes a brilliant discovery in a matter of minutes.

Arhimed needed only a bathtub to make his famous "Eureka!" finding. Newton discovered the most fundamental law of nature with a single apple as a laboratory equipment.

What about the following experiment?

One volunteer spends evening with, say, 3 chain smokers in a closed room. Smokers smoke continuously.

Another volunteer spends evening in the closed room, garage, for example, with a car with the running engine.

Though smoking is generally considered very harmful and limited legislatively in many ways, the first volunteer has a good chance to survive.

The 2nd volunteer would die almost instantly.

Could not we exclaim "Eureka!". The car exhaust is really very dangerous and deserves to be limited in one way or another.

What I mean is that a botanist does not need a stack of clover to research clover. He needs just one stem of clover.

(Disclaimer: do not repeat this experiment at home. It may cause suffocation very quickly.)

LittleBigMan

You twisted my words. I said it cannot be proven by debating.

"Theory" can be defined as: "Hypothesis or supposition."

"Hypothesis" can be defined as, "An assertion subject to verification or proof."

"Theorem" can be defined as, "A proven proposition."

If global warming were a "theorem," it would already be accepted and proved.

So the "global warming theory" is really a "global warming hypothesis," which is subject to verification or proof.

Therefore, the global warming hypothesis is subject to scientific investigation and proof.

Stor Mand

Evolution is not considered fact. It is still a theory and has not been proven conclusive.

Richard D

Surely all scientific 'proofs' are simply the most rational explanation based on the currently available knowledge? Or am I missing something?

Richard

webist

So far this thread has garnered 2496 views and now 235 posts with no movement toward resolution, decision or any conclusion.

LittleBigMan

What about this:

https://bikeforums.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1518

Just one of many that used to keep us all happy.

Jupe

You are quite mistaken. Biological evolution is defined as a change in gene frequency over time. It most certainly has occurred: it has been inferred by many lines of evidence in the fossil record and observed in real time.

It is a fact that evolution, the natural process that his been observed and documented through many independent lines of evidence, has occurred. It is a theory, subject to disproof, that this natural process has been caused by natural selection in combination with genetic drift, founder effect, etc.

Lay people often confuse debate over the mode of evolution with lack of consensus for the historical fact of evolution.

Andy Dreisch

Correct. I neglected to include the by debating part in my quote. So solly, Cholly.

Andy Dreisch

BINGO!!! And until then, we should not jump to conclusions or claim that it is upon us, as the media tend to do and as some have stated in absolute terms in earlier (way earlier!!!) replies.

Duffy

Nor should we institute drastic measures that would have an adverse affect on our economy.

bac

Call me silly, but if global warming is indeed real, and repairable by us, yet we do nothing ... well, we really won't have to worry about the economy anymore. Will we?

Duffy

Are you claiming the world as we know it will cease to exist if the earth warms a few degrees? C'mon!

stewartp

I've emphasised the IF, and to quote my own post:-

The key debatable issues are:
Is global warming happening at all?
If it is, is human activity to blame?
If it is, is it necessarily A Bad Thing?

Increased CO2 (blamed as being a greenhouse gas but pretty darned vital to life) will INCREASE plant growth.

Stew

Richard D

Of course there might be a smaller land mass for plants to grow on though...

bac

The earth will still be here. However, if some scientists are correct, it very well may shake us off like a bad case of the fleas.

Chris L

This is perhaps the most sensible thing posted in this interminable thread to date. Yes, the Earth would still be here if global warming happens. It's been through worse than this before. However, this is not terribly relevant. What is relevant is what happens to us as a species, and if the Earth warms by "a few degrees", there will be quite a few cities underwater.

Alexey

The Danube Cycle Path has survived unscathed!

Here is the link to the article