Climate 'Study' By Non-Scientist At EPA Is Right's New Cause Celebre

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Dude, Wikipedia, are you for real?

[HAL 9000 96]

If there wasn't a consensus, then it wouldn't be a theory....

I know!

**backs away from this thread**

You're just a meteorologist. Please don't deign to speak to someone as highly educated and eminently qualified as myself.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think it's odd that people are even in disagreement over the criteria of makes a scientific theory a theory.

[tmma 467]

If there wasn't a consensus, then it wouldn't be a theory....

I know!

**backs away from this thread**

You're just a meteorologist. Please don't deign to speak to someone as highly educated and eminently qualified as myself.

I am and I wasn't talking to you.

but....uhm...ok

[HAL 9000 96]

If there wasn't a consensus, then it wouldn't be a theory....

I know!

**backs away from this thread**

You're just a meteorologist. Please don't deign to speak to someone as highly educated and eminently qualified as myself.

I am and I wasn't talking to you.

but....uhm...ok

FYI... that isn't 'me'...

[nowhereman 1]

This thread is stuck in a virtual do loop.

[HAL 9000 96]

I think it's odd that people are even in disagreement over the criteria of makes a scientific theory a theory.

To be honest its irrelevant. The debate here is on how consensus is built. For some it involves bullying. For the rest, it involves reason.

That's why we have the scientific method- not as a popularity contest but more like a tool of thorough accomplishment.

[tmma 467]

If there wasn't a consensus, then it wouldn't be a theory....

I know!

**backs away from this thread**

You're just a meteorologist. Please don't deign to speak to someone as highly educated and eminently qualified as myself.

I am and I wasn't talking to you.

but....uhm...ok

FYI... that isn't 'me'...

I saw that just a tad too late- an extra 0. Who is it and are they qualified to speak to me, hmmmm ?

[HAL 9000 96]

If there wasn't a consensus, then it wouldn't be a theory....

I know!

**backs away from this thread**

You're just a meteorologist. Please don't deign to speak to someone as highly educated and eminently qualified as myself.

I am and I wasn't talking to you.

but....uhm...ok

FYI... that isn't 'me'...

I saw that just a tad too late- an extra 0. Who is it and are they qualified to speak to me, hmmmm ?

[GaryC 7]

So you agree that GW is a scientific theory, thereby generally accepted (consensus) by the scientific community? I ask this because you argued before that there is no consensus within the scientific community. If there wasn't a consensus, then it wouldn't be a theory....or do you have a different understanding of what consensus means?

As I said before, science isn't about consensus. It is about facts. You can have a theory without a majority of scientists accepting it.

Scientific theories come to existence through consensus or they are not theories, for one. Second, there is no conflict between facts and theory...

Essential criteria

The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no predictions that can be observed is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is inapplicable.

In practice a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a minimum empirical basis, according to certain criteria:

• It is consistent with pre-existing theory, to the extent the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense.
• It is supported by many strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation, ensuring it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Essential_criteria

A theory does not need to have consensus to be a theory. It only needs to predict the facts.

Case in point. Before Copernicus there was an astronomer named Ptolemy. He developed a theory that said the earth was at the center of the universe. He even worked out orbits of the planets orbiting the earth that would predict their motions. It fit all the requirements of a theory. It fit the data, could be tested and predicted future movements. Was it right? Nope. Was there consensus? Until Copernicus came along there was. Theories are not facts. They are just models that fit the facts.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think it's odd that people are even in disagreement over the criteria of makes a scientific theory a theory.

To be honest its irrelevant. The debate here is on how consensus is built. For some it involves bullying. For the rest, it involves reason.

That's why we have the scientific method- not as a popularity contest but more like a tool of thorough accomplishment.

I understand. A big part of Gary's argument is that he denies there is any scientific consensus among climate scientists on the theory of Global Warming. Those who don't accept the theory have tried to make the argument that scientists can never agree on anything so therefore a scientific theory doesn't mean much. I don't think he really understands the significance of when a theory comes into existence.

[Peikko 1,575]

Just out of interest. Those who do believe that global warming exists but do not believe that man has been a significant contributor in this, what do you think explains this sudden warming? What natural factors explain this?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Just out of interest. Those who do believe that global warming exists but do not believe that man has been a significant contributor in this, what do you think explains this sudden warming? What natural factors explain this?

What sudden warming? It's been a cold and wet summer so far.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So you agree that GW is a scientific theory, thereby generally accepted (consensus) by the scientific community? I ask this because you argued before that there is no consensus within the scientific community. If there wasn't a consensus, then it wouldn't be a theory....or do you have a different understanding of what consensus means?

As I said before, science isn't about consensus. It is about facts. You can have a theory without a majority of scientists accepting it.

Scientific theories come to existence through consensus or they are not theories, for one. Second, there is no conflict between facts and theory...

Essential criteria

The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no predictions that can be observed is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is inapplicable.

In practice a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a minimum empirical basis, according to certain criteria:

• It is consistent with pre-existing theory, to the extent the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense.
• It is supported by many strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation, ensuring it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Essential_criteria

A theory does not need to have consensus to be a theory. It only needs to predict the facts.

Case in point. Before Copernicus there was an astronomer named Ptolemy. He developed a theory that said the earth was at the center of the universe. He even worked out orbits of the planets orbiting the earth that would predict their motions. It fit all the requirements of a theory. It fit the data, could be tested and predicted future movements. Was it right? Nope. Was there consensus? Until Copernicus came along there was. Theories are not facts. They are just models that fit the facts.

In terms of the modern scientific method, the word consensus to me is just as accurate as the statement in red below:

Out of the scientific revolution emerged the modern scientific method. This is where we get the terms hypothesis, theory and law from. It can be summarised as follows:

1) Make observations

2) Come up with an hypothesis to explain your observations.

3) Design a repeatable experiment to test your hypothesis. It has to be a reasonable test that would disprove the hypothesis if it were false. If you cannot design such an experiment, your hypothesis is not scientific.

4) If your hypothesis gets tested among the scientific community and widely accepted it becomes a theory.

5) When the scientific community stops arguing about your theory it becomes law.

6) Someone makes a new observation that contradicts the law, theory or hypothesis and it all starts again.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/history...fic-method.html

Edited July 1, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

So basically, when people get sick of talking about a theory, it becomes law? Wow!