The Glade 4.0

Fair enough. Let's look at your post.


Your description of a theory is a really a hypothesis. A scientific conclusion is just one of many steps in the scientific process. A theory is an observable phenomenon that has a large body of evidence that supports said hypothesis and rejects many of the alternate hypotheses. A key element of a theory is the reproduction of experimental data using a highly related (preferably the same) procedure, which is a significant flaw in HIGCC. Since HIGCC data uses sophsicated computer models that predict (which is a major flaw since using predictive models require assumptions), it's nearly impossible to reproduce results. It's also difficult to reproduce temperature results since the variability (an element to avoid in scientific research) is great. Another great flaw of HIGCC is that it's difficult to observe. You can certainly observe climate change, but concluding it's due to humans would require more evidence that's hard to obtain due to the number of variables in an open environment, such as the Earth.

Gravitation is a theory, but the force of gravity is not. Gravity exists. It could cease to exist tomorrow or it may be a combination of other forces as we may find later. Both theories and laws embody gravitation. By the way, just because something is a theory doesn't make it any less true than a scientific law. A scientific law is just a way to describe a mechanism, generally through mathematical principles but it could also be verbal, that must apply under the same conditions everytime. Also, instead of using deductive reasoning as you do with theories, laws require inductive reasoning, which is why they're often backed by mathematical proofs. Laws can be disproven as well and indeed they have been or limited to certain conditions only. For instance, many of Newton's Laws have been limited to certain conditions, such as low gravitation, at low velocities, etc.

Heh. Even the simple, venerated Newtonian theory of gravity has obvious issues, at least in it's application -- the n-body problem being a prime example.

For instance, many of Newton's Laws have been limited to certain conditions, such as low gravitation, at low velocities, etc.

However, it's worth pointing out that, as the current time, we still don't have a "real space" that extends into any dimensions above or below three.

There is nothing "rabid" what so ever about my commentary, and I am insulted at the implication that it might be. Every major scientific organization *on the planet* stands behind my position. Every single one of them. Every objection to that science has been either debunked, or has been shown to be motivated and funded by parties with a vested interest in avoiding regulation. Something being a Theory does not mean it's not a reality. Pick up your pen and drop it 1000 times. Tell me that gravity does not affect the pen. A theory is the best understanding of the subject at hand we currently have.

The case for HIGCC has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We take the lives of our citizens based on less compelling evidence than what exists for global warming. We go to war and take tens of thousands of lives based on less compelling evidence than what exists to support HIGCC. People on this board believe in dieties and support legislation based on the teachings of said diety with *significantly* less evidence than what supports global warming. People on this board take absolute faith in an economic theory that has never actually even been tested in the real world than in HIGCC. It's preposterous.

If you are looking for rabidity, you need look no further than the people that ignore the overwhelming consensus in favor of the unsupported nipping at the margins from people with a vested, financial interest in the status quo.