Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyc
I'm not insisting on anything Ralph other than if you want to argue science then you must follow the scientific method. The scientists that have published the research in peer-reviewed journals all agree that global warming is real and being caused by humans. Unless you can scientifically disprove it, the theory stands.
The minor issues you bring up have all been taken into account. They are anomalies that have little to do with what we are seeing with the current climate issues.
|
The theory may "stand" but scientifically and logically speaking you do not seek to
disprove a theory, you seek to prove it and in so doing, by default, may end up "disproving" it.
I have a theory that there are flying pink elephants in my back yard and they are what recently broke my rear bedroom window. Does that theory "stand" until you can "disprove" it? My brothers kid, who was playing in the room at the time swears it was not him who broke it and there is no quantifiable evidence as to what did break the window.
The scientific method requires a theory to be "proved"(at least to a replicatable or functionally and logically useful, standard) for it to have any validity/credibility, not the other way around. The flying pink elephant theory may "stand"(especially in the absence of a rock or some other evidence showing how the window broke or an admission by my nephew) but it has no credibility.
All that is not to say the "climate change" theory isn't credible though. As I've said, I don't know.
Cheers,
PKFFW