In article et,
Maxprop wrote:

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Actually, most of the science is right according to many
environmental scientists.

The science is strictly theory, but it *may* be accurate. Or it may
not be. It really makes little difference, because we aren't likely
to see anything of the sort during our lifetimes, or those of our
children or their children.

Who said so? Theory? Perhaps you think Intelligent Design is a theory
also.

I'll go one step further, Jon. I'm betting that within five to ten
years, the whole theory of global warming will be as passé and
forgotten as pet rocks, cancer-causing high-tension power lines,
cell-phones causing CA, and Furbies. When the next cause celeb comes
along, GW will be discarded onto the same pile of oblivion that all the
other "urgent, life-threatening" issues-of-the-day have found
themselves.


Well, that's your "theory" right... hahahaa

Yup. And it's neither provable nor disprovable any more than the theory
of global warming being completely attributed to greenhouse gases and
human heat generation. Only time will tell which theory is right.
Probably neither, actually.

You need to take a look at the definition of the word theory... feel free
to get back to me when you understand it. :-)

Random House Dictionary: Theory: a proposed explanation whose status
is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are
regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Is that succinct enough for you, Jon? Or do you view the Random House
Dictionary with the same disrespect as those scientists with whom your
dogmatic opinions are in contravention?

Sorry, got to agree with Jon on this one. What's described as above I'd
call a hypothesis. A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested and
can't (so far) be falsified.

Take a look at Kuhn's 'Structures of Scientific Revolutions' and some
of Karl Popper's work then get back to me if you want to argue this
further.

FWIW I studied history & philosophy of science at university some 30
years ago as a part of my first degree.

Another ship sailing at 1700 today so I'm gone...

PDW