Global Warming Fraud?

[thewholetruth]

The terms in their hypothesese which are "is very likely" and "It is likely" means they really don't know. They're pulling these conclusions out of their collective arses. That's their way of saying "We're adding up all the evidence but we do not have enough evidence to say for sure".

They don't know, sir, or they would say they do know.

I think it's likely I'll have a hit record one day soon. The truth is, I don't really know if I ever will.

Same difference.

Oh, I have evidence that leads me believe it's likely. But until I sign a contract and see the sales hit the ceiling, I really don't know.

They don't know if we're causing global warming, either.

Don

IPCC does not use the term 'proof'.

The way they word it is: "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica)."

[Braggi]

... Even Darwin wasn't so arrogant to pretend his notion was FACT, as he had no proof, so hence: the THEORY of evolution. ...

What Darwin had was a mountain of evidence. Not the same as proof, but evidence points us in the direction of knowledge. An awful lot of the electronic miracles that make our computers work are based on theory. That doesn't mean it isn't real or true. What about the "cell theory?" The theory that our bodies are made up of cells. That's a fact and yet it's still called a theory.

Darwin's story does not support your arguments, Don. Quite the opposite.

Now we have so many mountains of evidence supporting evolution and almost nothing arguing against it we can work with the idea that evolution happened, is still happening, and, assuming we don't screw up the Earth completely, will continue happening as long as living things exist.

I know that to be true to the degree that my whole live is built around the notion that it is true. I work with the assumption that I'm here on this Earth to further the cause of evolution or at least to minimize human damage to the process.

I'm not very worried about Global Warming, because all the things we should be doing to reduce greenhouse gasses are things we should be doing for so many other reasons it's not worth arguing about. We need to just get on with it.

Why would anyone argue against becoming more energy efficient?

-Jeff

[thewholetruth]

"I'm waiting for some proof from Don that we have had no effect on our planet's climate."

I've never made that claim, Larkin.

Don

[quote=Orm Embar;55595]

"I'm waiting for some proof from Don that we have had no effect on our planet's climate."

Larkin, one cannot prove a negative. The onus, as you very well know but seem to be feigning ignorance about, is on you.


Hi Don,

Actually, your logic is faulty. Some negatives are impossible to prove. Some are difficult to prove. Some negatives are easy to prove. I'll give you the benefit of starting easy:

Prove to me that:
1) Human have NOT been pumping crude oil from the Earth's crust.
2) Humans have NOT been combusting that crude oil in unprecedented amounts in the last 100 years.
3) Carbon Dioxide is NOT a product of crude oil combustion, nor a product of any crude oil derivatives.
4) Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would be at the same levels they are now if humans never discovered the amazing energy potential packed in oil deposits, and never pumped or burned those reserves.
5) Carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has no effect on surface temperatures of our planet.

Those should be easy. Next we can talk about methane.

Sorry, you don't get to back out of this challenge by claiming you cannot prove a negative. Do the work outlined above or actually read the reports (and original studies) I sent. Until then all you are saying is empty rhetoric.

Or confess that you don't really care . . . maybe you just want to debate and this is a touchy topic and you like using rhetoric?

And, I told you in a private email that I am not a Sir. You can discontinue the snideness.

-Larkin

[thewholetruth]

"What Darwin had was a mountain of evidence. Not the same as proof, but evidence points us in the direction of knowledge.

Jeff, I hear you. Perhaps some folks are convinced by evidence, and others require facts.

"That's a fact and yet it's still called a theory. Darwin's story does not support your arguments, Don. Quite the opposite."

Sorry, you're incorrect, Jeff. A theory is not proven. That is what makes it a theory and not a fact. Words mean something. Neither Darwin nor anyone else on the planet has ever offered proof that man evolved from apes. Remember the missing link? It's still missing. The missing link is the PROOF that is missing from the equation, which is why it is still a "theory".

I had so much evidence that my friend Chris had stolen my sterling silver curling iron that I used as a roach clip 31 years ago that I called him a thief, demanded he return my family heirloom (inherited it from my great aunt), and banned him from my life until he returned it. I was CERTAIN, Jeff, because I had so much evidence.

3 months later I found it down in a crack in my couch. I called him and apologized, and I swore I would never draw conclusions without facts again. Had I had proof that he had stolen it would have been one thing. I only had evidence, it APPEARED conclusive, yet it wasn't conclusive, obviously.

I look at global warming the same way. If someone will prove it then I'll buy it. Otherwise, we're still just polluting the planet like we have for 100 years. Until someone offers proof, then the sky isn't really falling.

"I'm not very worried about Global Warming, because all the things we should be doing to reduce greenhouse gasses are things we should be doing for so many other reasons it's not worth arguing about. We need to just get on with it.

Why would anyone argue against becoming more energy efficient?"

And I agree with you on this, too.

Don

What Darwin had was a mountain of evidence. Not the same as proof, but evidence points us in the direction of knowledge. An awful lot of the electronic miracles that make our computers work are based on theory. That doesn't mean it isn't real or true. What about the "cell theory?" The theory that our bodies are made up of cells. That's a fact and yet it's still called a theory.

Darwin's story does not support your arguments, Don. Quite the opposite.

Now we have so many mountains of evidence supporting evolution and almost nothing arguing against it we can work with the idea that evolution happened, is still happening, and, assuming we don't screw up the Earth completely, will continue happening as long as living things exist.

I know that to be true to the degree that my whole live is built around the notion that it is true. I work with the assumption that I'm here on this Earth to further the cause of evolution or at least to minimize human damage to the process.

I'm not very worried about Global Warming, because all the things we should be doing to reduce greenhouse gasses are things we should be doing for so many other reasons it's not worth arguing about. We need to just get on with it.

Why would anyone argue against becoming more energy efficient?

-Jeff

[thewholetruth]

What other scientists are saying. Scroll through if you're really interested. 19,000 American scientists have signed a petition calling Al Gore's 'global warming' a fraud. And do you know why so many are saying so much against the theory that we're responsible for global warming? Because there is no PROOF that we are.

There are many articles in these two web sources:

https://www.oism.org/pproject/

https://www.firesociety.com/article/24204/

Don

Don,

This is not a posting about whether one can or cannot prove a negative.

What I am curious about is my impression that you are very certain that humans have had no effect on the climate.

I even sense that you are more certain of this then I am of the opposite, that our GHG emissions have had such an effect and will even more so in the future. My sense of urgency does not so much derive from an extreme certainty, but more so from the enormity of the downside.

Am I right? Are you very certain?? And how come you are so certain if you don't have a proof (cannot have a proof)? Is it more based on a general and extreme distrust you have of the proponents of anthropogenic climate change. That they are not to be trusted, must have other motives, are trying to redo our society in their image?

I am teaching off and on a class on philosophical issues in Global Climate Change, and sometimes I have a student who comes from this direction. I am trying to understand this position from the inside out.

Zeno

[Braggi]

... Neither Darwin nor anyone else on the planet has ever offered proof that man evolved from apes. Remember the missing link? It's still missing. The missing link is the PROOF that is missing from the equation, which is why it is still a "theory". ...

Well, Darwin never said we evolved from apes, now did he? Perhaps you should learn something about the topics you post about.

...
I had so much evidence that my friend Chris had stolen my sterling silver curling iron that I used as a roach clip 31 years ago that I called him a thief ...

You know the difference between you and Darwin in this case? Darwin knew what he was talking about.

-Jeff

[Valley Oak]

Creationists always use a phrase similar to '...we did not come from apes...' in a very pejorative or ridiculing manner. It is traditional of creationists to do this because, among them, the idea that humans came from that lower species is laughable and absurd. But what creationists overlook, to their own detriment, is that the theory of evolution never indicated that man came from apes, which demonstrates once again creationist ignorance. Evolutionary theory says that man and ape both evolved from the same branch, independent from one another.

Edward

Well, Darwin never said we evolved from apes, now did he? Perhaps you should learn something about the topics you post about.



You know the difference between you and Darwin in this case? Darwin knew what he was talking about.

-Jeff

[Orm Embar]

Are people now expected to swallow Al's and the IPCC's 'conclusion's whole?

Goodness, I sure hope people don't swallow anything whole. I usually like to chew first, whether it be ideas or food.

I skip the carefully crafted headlines and look to the methodology of the studies and whether or not they went through a peer review process. It's also interesting to find out who supplies the funding. You know, if I only read headlines I would never have made it to the substance of the links that Don recently posted. Whew!

Happy Friday!
-Larkin

[lynn]

"I'm waiting for some proof from Don that we have had no effect on our planet's climate."

I've never made that claim, Larkin.
---------------------------------

Larkin...I've never come across anyone yet...Who says 'we' currently have NO effect on our planet's climate...

[Orm Embar]

Excerpted from previous posts:
The terms in their hypothesese which are "is very likely" and "It is likely" means they really don't know. They're pulling these conclusions out of their collective arses. That's their way of saying "We're adding up all the evidence but we do not have enough evidence to say for sure".

I'm interested in what proves that WE are solely responsible for global warming, Larkin, like scientists and the tin-foil-hat crowd are insisting. I haven't seen them/you prove that global warming is directly our doing. And considering that it appears to have happened several times throughout the history of our planet, I think that BEGS the question: Where is your proof? I think any intelligent person would ask that question before they jump on the Speculative Bandwagon.

"It sounds to me, according to how you come across in written word (I fully understand that it is easy to mis-read someone's tone and intention), that you don't want to believe that humans have had an effect on our entire planet's climate. Is that true?"

No, that's not true. I can see the FACTS, Larkin: We've polluted the waters and the skies and the land. Those are facts and we have PROOF of that. But I believe that if a scientist truly believed that we're responsible for global warming, he would recognize that global warming has happened from time to time on our planet, so it is critical that he offer IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE before he make a wild claim like "We're doing it THIS time!" Any less than that (which is what we have right now: less than that) is Chicken Little, sir.

I simply questioned what factual evidence you had to support the contention that WE have caused global warming THIS TIME.

Science used PHYSICS to prove the world was round, using the Earth itself as hard evidence, Larkin. This global warming scare isn't that.
Don

Hmmm . . . maybe the difficulty of this conversation is in the request for 100% IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE, then the rejection of evidence that is offered since no one is claiming 100% confidence in the likelihood of human influenced climate change.

It is already acknowledged that the Earth is in a long term warming trend. The next ice age is quite a ways away, according to historical patterns.

The link to one of the IPCC's working group's FAQs was chosen in direct response to a request for physical evidence that this warming trend is different than past warming trends and also different than it would be if human causes were not a factor.

Asking for irrefutable evidence at a 100% confidence level is unrealistic and people making 100% confidence claims are often trying to sell something. So, if we cannot use scientific inquiry to answer the question of whether humans have a role in climate change, what other avenues do we have?

-Larkin

[Orm Embar]

"I'm waiting for some proof from Don that we have had no effect on our planet's climate."

I've never made that claim, Larkin.
---------------------------------

Larkin...I've never come across anyone yet...Who says 'we' currently have NO effect on our planet's climate...

So, what effects do you believe that we HAVE had on our climate

-Larkin

[lynn]

Larkin....So, what effects do you believe that we HAVE had on our climate
----------

Personally, I would have no idea...I am not a scientist, know next to nothing about science, and have absolutely no knowledge of 'climate science' whatsoever...

But, what I do know...Is that there are those with science backgrounds stating the current 'change' is such, that it is not out of the realm of 'natural' earth cycles/changes...with or without 'us'...

[Valley Oak]

Well, the B I B L E, of course!

Edward

...So, if we cannot use scientific inquiry to answer the question of whether humans have a role in climate change, what other avenues do we have?

-Larkin

[thewholetruth]

"So, if we cannot use scientific inquiry to answer the question of whether humans have a role in climate change, what other avenues do we have?"

1) Stop pretending we have the answers. 2) Wait and see.

FYI, "scientific inquiry" IS the question, Larkin. Scientific inquiry is science asking a question. It isn't the answer to anything. It is the act of questioning.

Don

Hmmm . . . maybe the difficulty of this conversation is in the request for 100% IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE, then the rejection of evidence that is offered since no one is claiming 100% confidence in the likelihood of human influenced climate change.

It is already acknowledged that the Earth is in a long term warming trend. The next ice age is quite a ways away, according to historical patterns.

The link to one of the IPCC's working group's FAQs was chosen in direct response to a request for physical evidence that this warming trend is different than past warming trends and also different than it would be if human causes were not a factor.

Asking for irrefutable evidence at a 100% confidence level is unrealistic and people making 100% confidence claims are often trying to sell something. So, if we cannot use scientific inquiry to answer the question of whether humans have a role in climate change, what other avenues do we have?

-Larkin

[thewholetruth]

"Darwin knew what he was talking about. "

I'm afraid you're mistaken about that, Jeff. He was guessing, based on evidence he had gathered, but he never "knew" what he was talking about.

Does 5+9+2=16? Not when the rest of the figures haven't been tabulated. Darwin didn't have enough information to "know" what he was talking about. He had just enough information to talk about what he "thought" was true.

Don

Well, Darwin never said we evolved from apes, now did he? Perhaps you should learn something about the topics you post about.



You know the difference between you and Darwin in this case? Darwin knew what he was talking about.

-Jeff

[Zeno Swijtink]

(...)
I look at global warming the same way. If someone will prove it then I'll buy it. Otherwise, we're still just polluting the planet like we have for 100 years. Until someone offers proof, then the sky isn't really falling. (...)

Don

Something may be true but unproven or even unprovable in your sense of the word. The sky may be falling while nobody can prove it (yet) in your sense of connecting it with fact.

The hypothesis of anthropic climate change refers to complicated, long turn processes, involving molecules like CO2 and CFCs that have a long half life in the atmosphere.

What we are looking for is weight of evidence, speaking of "likely," "very likely," etc., which is the language the IPCC uses.

The sky is very likely falling slowly now, and ever faster tomorrow, according to the IPCC. And if we wait too long no known technology can stop the sky from falling.

We don't brush aside predictions based in the theory of earthquakes but spend our money accordingly even if the theory is "just a theory," or even if the theory only assigns a 95% probability to the earthquake.

If you wait for the earthquake to happen you're too late. If you wait for the earthquake prediction to come true just so you can base your action on an observation of fact your are denying the whole role of theorizing in responsible management. Because theories can never be proven.

As a second issue, I think you draw the line between proven fact and unproven fact too sharply. You don't really know that in the case of the missing heirloom a mutual friend of Chris and you did not slip the sterling silver curling iron in the crack of your couch.

We are constantly making inferences that could be proved wrong or put to doubt by later observations. The observations themselves can be proven wrong, as being based on visual illusions, measurement errors, etc.

Or inferences could be based on a mix of fact and theory. We could find a cave painting of a cave man spearing a dinosaur. It would create a sensation among evolutionary biologists, and certainly be embraced by the Bible Museum folks as true testimony and proof of the Biblical time line. But later carbon data could expose the drawing as a hoax, and make me reject the drawing as evidence of anything. Or carbon dating could be consistent with the drawing being ancient from the time of the cave men and suggest that there is something fundamentally wrong with the commonly accepted time line.

Here a "theory" (carbon dating) correct an inference about facts.

The philosopher Bertrand Russell Showed that everything we know about the past is based on such theory-laden inferences:

There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that "remembered" a wholly unreal past. There is no logically necessary connection between events at different times; therefore nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis that the world began five minutes ago.

But when you make inferences about Chris's guild or innocence you are implicitly relying on inferences that go beyond the facts as you think to know them. And you have to.

Thinking in terms of probabilities and in terms of the severity of ups and downs ("utilities") is inevitable.

[santarosie]

Words mean something. Neither Darwin nor anyone else on the planet has ever offered proof that man evolved from apes. Remember the missing link? It's still missing. The missing link is the PROOF that is missing from the equation, which is why it is still a "theory".

The missing link has indeed been found, here is your PROOF!

[thewholetruth]

ROTFLOL! That's too funny!

Don

The missing link has indeed been found, here is your PROOF!

[phooph]

I have been only a lurker on this discussion but when people begin to throw around opinions on the meaning of the word 'theory' I feel a need to step in and set the record straight. The common usage of the word theory refers to a conjecture. In the scientific community it refers to a concept that is supported by a substantial body of evidence. Gravity is still 'only a theory' by scientific standards.

"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 verified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the theory of general relativity."

"What Darwin had was a mountain of evidence. Not the same as proof, but evidence points us in the direction of knowledge.

Jeff, I hear you. Perhaps some folks are convinced by evidence, and others require facts.

"That's a fact and yet it's still called a theory. Darwin's story does not support your arguments, Don. Quite the opposite."

Sorry, you're incorrect, Jeff. A theory is not proven. That is what makes it a theory and not a fact. Words mean something. Neither Darwin nor anyone else on the planet has ever offered proof that man evolved from apes. Remember the missing link? It's still missing. The missing link is the PROOF that is missing from the equation, which is why it is still a "theory".

I had so much evidence that my friend Chris had stolen my sterling silver curling iron that I used as a roach clip 31 years ago that I called him a thief, demanded he return my family heirloom (inherited it from my great aunt), and banned him from my life until he returned it. I was CERTAIN, Jeff, because I had so much evidence.

3 months later I found it down in a crack in my couch. I called him and apologized, and I swore I would never draw conclusions without facts again. Had I had proof that he had stolen it would have been one thing. I only had evidence, it APPEARED conclusive, yet it wasn't conclusive, obviously.

I look at global warming the same way. If someone will prove it then I'll buy it. Otherwise, we're still just polluting the planet like we have for 100 years. Until someone offers proof, then the sky isn't really falling.

"I'm not very worried about Global Warming, because all the things we should be doing to reduce greenhouse gasses are things we should be doing for so many other reasons it's not worth arguing about. We need to just get on with it.

Why would anyone argue against becoming more energy efficient?"

And I agree with you on this, too.

Don

[thewholetruth]

The fact that no one can indentify specifically, but only point to the evidence of, gravity is what makes Newton's Law (oops! Not Newton's THEORY?) of Gravity but a theory.

If global warming and/or the Theory of Evolution or the Creation Theory were ever PROVEN, they would no longer be consider "theories". They would be facts.

People who consider novel notions or unproven conclusions to be the same as "facts" are simply wrong.

Don

I have been only a lurker on this discussion but when people begin to throw around opinions on the meaning of the word 'theory' I feel a need to step in and set the record straight. The common usage of the word theory refers to a conjecture. In the scientific community it refers to a concept that is supported by a substantial body of evidence. Gravity is still 'only a theory' by scientific standards.

"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 verified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the theory of general relativity."

[Orm Embar]

The common usage of the word theory refers to a conjecture. In the scientific community it refers to a concept that is supported by a substantial body of evidence. Gravity is still 'only a theory' by scientific standards.

Thank you!
I think some confusion and conflict have arisen because some people are using scientific terms and those unfamiliar with the terms are responding as if the words were from common language.

In addition, regarding the term Theory:

" In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality.
This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statements. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them."

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#cite_note-0

To further clarify another term: I used the term "Scientific Inquiry" as a scientific term, not as a mere combination of the words "scientific" and "inquiry". It does not mean "to ask a question" . . . it's meaning is more like "to ask a question and then methodically look for answers that can be duplicated consistently".

Definition:
[The National Science Education Standards (NSES p. 23) defines scientific inquiry as "the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world and propose explanations based on the evidence derived from their work. Scientific inquiry also refers to the activities through which students develop knowledge and understanding of scientific ideas, as well as an understanding of how scientists study the natural world." ]
Reference: https://www.nsta.org/about/positions/inquiry.aspx

Hope this helps clear up any confusion about what I wrote earlier.

-Larkin

[Orm Embar]

People who consider novel notions or unproven conclusions to be the same as "facts" are simply wrong.

Don

I'm sorry, I don't remember anyone making such claims. Which post(s) state that that "novel notions or unproven conclusions" are facts?

[Orm Embar]

"I'm waiting for some proof from Don that we have had no effect on our planet's climate."

I've never made that claim, Larkin.
---------------------------------

Larkin...I've never come across anyone yet...Who says 'we' currently have NO effect on our planet's climate...

Then I'm unclear about what your issue is in this discussion. I know I've been annoyed with the fad of "going green" and all the pop news about climate change, but some people won't make life changes unless we push ourselves to the point of crisis. So I ignore the hype, but I don't dismiss the science.

[thewholetruth]

Post 289 seems to be inferring that, scientifically speaking, theory is the same as fact.

It's not. Hence, the different sounds of the words (theory...fact - say them slowly, one after the other. Hear the difference?). Different sounding and different meanings, as well.

See, if theories were facts, then we wouldn't need both of those words to describe them. :-P

Don

I'm sorry, I don't remember anyone making such claims. Which post(s) state that that "novel notions or unproven conclusions" are facts?

[phooph]

There are many theories in science that are commonly accpeted as fact. In the scientific lexicon, theory does NOT always mean conjecture or hypothesis. Atomic theory and cell theory are well established enough to be viewed as facts but are still called theories. We can see cells under a microscope and we can grow them in tissue cultures and their existance is still a theory. We can see atomic particles in a very specialized electron microscope, we can fling them around inside particle accelerators and watch their behavior, and we built a bunch of bombs and power plants based on the behavior of certain types of atoms, however their existence is still a theory. Electricity is still only a theory and we seem to be able to use it without it being declared a fact.

Some theories are unproven and may not be pan out in the end, but labeling something a theory in the scientific world does not relegate it to the realm of mythology.

Post 289 seems to be inferring that, scientifically speaking, theory is the same as fact.

It's not. Hence, the different sounds of the words (theory...fact - say them slowly, one after the other. Hear the difference?). Different sounding and different meanings, as well.

See, if theories were facts, then we wouldn't need both of those words to describe them. :-P

Don

[Valley Oak]

I have a question. What is the difference between a 'theory' and a 'law?'

Is it the 'law of gravity', or the 'theory of gravity,' for example?

Thanks,

Edward

There are many theories in science that are commonly accpeted as fact. In the scientific lexicon, theory does NOT always mean conjecture or hypothesis. Atomic theory and cell theory are well established enough to be viewed as facts but are still called theories. We can see cells under a microscope and we can grow them in tissue cultures and their existance is still a theory. We can see atomic particles in a very specialized electron microscope, we can fling them around inside particle accelerators and watch their behavior, and we built a bunch of bombs and power plants based on the behavior of certain types of atoms, however their existence is still a theory. Electricity is still only a theory and we seem to be able to use it without it being declared a fact.

Some theories are unproven and may not be pan out in the end, but labeling something a theory in the scientific world does not relegate it to the realm of mythology.

[Braggi]

I have a question. What is the difference between a 'theory' and a 'law?'

Is it the 'law of gravity, or the 'theory of gravity, for example?'

A nice concise explanation:

Theory vs. Hypothesis vs. Law
Unraveling the Confusion of Important Terminology

https://physics.suite101.com/article...thesis_vs__law

-Jeff

[thewholetruth]

Jeff, while I appreciate your attempt to provide clarification here about this, the article is so flawed it's pathetic. What the writer is attempting to convince us is that is now no difference between theory and law, and that is utterly ridiculous.

THEY SAY: "Science, and physics in particular, is a tool to root out the true nature of reality. It can describe only what it observes which may or may not be true in every case."

Amen. And when they discover something which is true in every case, then it is called "fact". When they haven't the evidence to prove it conclusively, it is called "theory".

THEY SAY: "In order to say if something is absolutely true, every single possible case of a particular phenomena must be observed. In a universe as vast as ours, that's completely impractical."

LOL That's always been the case. Our Universe is no more vast now than it ever was. But facts are facts because they are PROVEN and theory is theory because it is NOT. The two words mean something, Jeff, but your writer has attempted to blur the line between their definitions. It's not working over here.

THEY SAY: "So science has tossed the use of "law" in favor of "theory". This "theory" does not mean "hypothesis" which is a speculation. In this case, think of music theory - definitely not a hypothesis, but a working set of rules that define a body of knowledge."

So is the writer now saying that science has decided it can never really prove anything, Jeff? For example, take this theory that we're responsible for global warming. Using your writers logic, scientists are now telling us that despite their inability to prove we're responsible for causing it, do we now need to call their theories "facts"? In fact, (or, according to your writer, in theory, since fact and theory have now become the same thing) there is no longer any such thing as "fact". Theory has become the new "fact". Isn't that of what your writer is trying to convince us?

THEY SAY: "The line between theory and hypothesis can become blurry when it comes to very active and new areas of science. "

Oh, I see that I'm mistaken. They aren't addressing "fact" at all. They're simply attempting to differentiate between theory and hypothesis, which are the exact same thing.

INTERESTING OBSERVATION #777: Attorneys used to present themselves as giants, huge intellectuals with far greater knowledge and power than the rest of us. Doctors used to do the same thing, due in their case to the "God Complex" they are prone to in their line of work. Pastors and Ministers also used to be revered as somehow above the rest of us, perhaps morally or perhaps generally speaking. That is, we gave people in these lines of work FAR too much credit, simply because of the line of work they are in. Today, we know there are just as many losers and idiots in these lines of work as in any other. We now know they AREN'T any better than the rest of us, and that many of them get paid WAY more than they are worth. Propping themselves up as being Devine (or closer to Devine than the rest of us)served them well. It got their salaries up and we all thought they were worth it, because we bought their self-important b.s.

Scientists are the new attorneys. They are doing everything in their power to manipulate us into believing that their "hypothesese" are as good as "facts", because they SAY so. They are really just trying to do what the others have done: Convince us that their work is so important that we'll pay them large sums of money (in grants and salaries) and let them continue to do what they love, which is investigate stuff. The problem I have with their agenda (collectively speaking) is that their manipulation has become obvious. They are trying to force feed us their theories, while pretending they are facts. They are trying to convince us that their hypothesese are as good as that which is PROVEN, which they are not. They are investigators, these scientists, and that is what they love to do. But they have crossed a line when they try to blur the line between theory and fact. The line is clear, to those who aren't already baffled by their b.s..

Don

A nice concise explanation:

Theory vs. Hypothesis vs. Law
Unraveling the Confusion of Important Terminology

https://physics.suite101.com/article...thesis_vs__law

-Jeff

[thewholetruth]

"Something may be true but unproven or even unprovable in your sense of the word. The sky may be falling while nobody can prove it (yet) in your sense of connecting it with fact."

Which renders it a "novel notion", likely perhaps (and perhaps not), but unproven.

"The hypothesis of anthropic climate change refers to complicated, long turn processes, involving molecules like CO2 and CFCs that have a long half life in the atmosphere. What we are looking for is weight of evidence, speaking of "likely," "very likely," etc., which is the language the IPCC uses."

So someone has a theory, and is enjoying investigating it. I get it.

"The sky is very likely falling slowly now, and ever faster tomorrow, according to the IPCC."

That's correct, according to the IPCC, despite their inability to prove that theory. Again, another novel notion, as yet unproven.

"And if we wait too long no known technology can stop the sky from falling."

B.S. That is conclusionary thinking which requires a huge LEAP. That is nothing more than an unfounded opinion, Zeno. In fact, THAT appears to have just been pulled out of someone's arse, as the statement itself is unsupported by any of your previous statement. That is emotionally charged opinion, nothing more. For all you know, the Earth will correct itself, because for all you know, this global warming is simply natural phenomena, the same way global warming has occurred many times before. You don't know.

"We don't brush aside predictions based in the theory of earthquakes but spend our money accordingly even if the theory is "just a theory," or even if the theory only assigns a 95% probability to the earthquake."

Yes we do. When was the last time an area was evacuated because someone claimed to know that an earthquake was about to happen? Never happened, Zeno. We don't buy theory as fact.

"You don't really know that in the case of the missing heirloom a mutual friend of Chris and you did not slip the sterling silver curling iron in the crack of your couch."

Of course it occurred to me, and bravo to you for thinking that far about it. I chose to err on the side of grace.

"Thinking in terms of probabilities and in terms of the severity of ups and downs ("utilities") is inevitable."

Granted, THINKING in those terms is inevitable, but pretending that probabilities are facts is flawed thinking. And asking the entire population of the USA to start dancing because someone THINKS we're causing global warming is called "foolishness", where I come from. Al Gore is the biggest scammer of this century, first claiming to have created the internet, and when that lie blew up in his face, turning to this THEORY and jumped on the bandwagon, taking advantage of all the fearful and gullible people who buy his b.s. Al cannot prove his case, Zeno, and at least 19,000 American scientists agree that the global warming scam is just a scam: https://www.oism.org/pproject/

19,000 American scientists call the claim that we're causing global warming a "lie", Zeno. I think that's significant.

Don

Something may be true but unproven or even unprovable in your sense of the word. The sky may be falling while nobody can prove it (yet) in your sense of connecting it with fact.

The hypothesis of anthropic climate change refers to complicated, long turn processes, involving molecules like CO2 and CFCs that have a long half life in the atmosphere.

What we are looking for is weight of evidence, speaking of "likely," "very likely," etc., which is the language the IPCC uses.

The sky is very likely falling slowly now, and ever faster tomorrow, according to the IPCC. And if we wait too long no known technology can stop the sky from falling.

We don't brush aside predictions based in the theory of earthquakes but spend our money accordingly even if the theory is "just a theory," or even if the theory only assigns a 95% probability to the earthquake.

If you wait for the earthquake to happen you're too late. If you wait for the earthquake prediction to come true just so you can base your action on an observation of fact your are denying the whole role of theorizing in responsible management. Because theories can never be proven.

As a second issue, I think you draw the line between proven fact and unproven fact too sharply. You don't really know that in the case of the missing heirloom a mutual friend of Chris and you did not slip the sterling silver curling iron in the crack of your couch.

We are constantly making inferences that could be proved wrong or put to doubt by later observations. The observations themselves can be proven wrong, as being based on visual illusions, measurement errors, etc.

Or inferences could be based on a mix of fact and theory. We could find a cave painting of a cave man spearing a dinosaur. It would create a sensation among evolutionary biologists, and certainly be embraced by the Bible Museum folks as true testimony and proof of the Biblical time line. But later carbon data could expose the drawing as a hoax, and make me reject the drawing as evidence of anything. Or carbon dating could be consistent with the drawing being ancient from the time of the cave men and suggest that there is something fundamentally wrong with the commonly accepted time line.

Here a "theory" (carbon dating) correct an inference about facts.

The philosopher Bertrand Russell Showed that everything we know about the past is based on such theory-laden inferences:



But when you make inferences about Chris's guild or innocence you are implicitly relying on inferences that go beyond the facts as you think to know them. And you have to.

Thinking in terms of probabilities and in terms of the severity of ups and downs ("utilities") is inevitable.

[thewholetruth]

The Truth About Global Warming: https://www.firesociety.com/article/24204/