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

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"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.

Max

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

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
...
Essenhigh knows that his scientific opinion is a minority one. As far as
he knows, he's the only person who's linked global warming and carbon
dioxide in this particular way. But he maintains his evaluations represent
an improvement on those of the majority opinion, because they are
logically rigorous and includes water vapor as a far more significant
factor than in other studies.

I'm betting Jon will proclaim this researcher to be full of ****, based upon
nothing, of course, beyond his eco-radical opinions.

Yeah, I'm a tree hugger... the telling phrase is...

"his scientific opinion is a minority one"

"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?

Max

That's one of many meanings. Do you believe that Intelligent Design is a
theory? It seems to work in your definition.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...
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?

Max

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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
That's one of many meanings. Do you believe that Intelligent Design is a
theory? It seems to work in your definition.

I tend to subscribe to the theory of evolution. ID is a belief based upon
faith, not science.

Max

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
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.

I don't.

Max

But Max, you said that the definition of theory is "Theory: a proposed
explanation whose status
is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are
regarded as reporting matters
of actual fact." Seems to me that ID falls into that category.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
That's one of many meanings. Do you believe that Intelligent Design is a
theory? It seems to work in your definition.

I tend to subscribe to the theory of evolution. ID is a belief based upon
faith, not science.

Max

I figured you didn't. :-)

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

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

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
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.

I don't.

Max

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
I figured you didn't. :-)

But not for the reason you suspect.

It's simply not worth pursuing. For example, if I agree that Pete is right,
then I have to retract my statement that global warming is a theory, rather
a hypothesis. Then you're going to get all ****y-moany about that, and
we're going to go back and forth another twenty or so times.

Not worth the effort.

Max