No more global warming?

**Centurion1** · 10-14-2009, 17:25

There are a lot of respected scientists who say global warming is a crockpot. i think the world goes through natural cycles and that twenty years fom now people (probably al gores son) will be preaching the imminent ice age. The problem is how this unproven THEORY is being used to indoctrinate children into eco-freaks and how in us schools at least it is treated as scientific dogma.

Gah, and al gore is an idiot. some of those scenes in an inconvenient truth of ice caps melting are from the day after tomorrow. That that man won the Nobel peace prize, it is empty for me........

**Sarmatian** · 10-14-2009, 18:04

Caring about environment isn't a bad idea. Just because there is no consensus among scientists about what's really happening doesn't mean we should pump as much CO2 in the atmosphere, leave plastic waste in forests and dump oil into the ocean.

We're rich enough to afford spending some money on environment.

I'm no expert on the issue but according to my knowledge, there have been significant variations in temperature in some periods even during recorded history.

**Centurion1** · 10-14-2009, 18:34

i agree of course that environmental change is needed, i just do not think we are going to single-handedly destroy the earth and melt all the ice. simply humans unable to accept that the world doesn't need us to survive or destroy itself (not that that is going to happen)

**Rhyfelwyr** · 10-14-2009, 18:48

Originally Posted by Centurion1

i agree of course that environmental change is needed, i just do not think we are going to single-handedly destroy the earth and melt all the ice. simply humans unable to accept that the world doesn't need us to survive or destroy itself (not that that is going to happen)

I never really understood that argument. My geography teacher used to always say it was arrogant of ourselves to think we could destroy the planet.

However, the thing is, we're not going to destroy it, but even a relatively small change in climatic conditions on the surface could leave us unable to inhabit it.

It won't make a big difference to the earth as a planet, but to us as a species it could.

**Aemilius Paulus** · 10-14-2009, 19:10

Originally Posted by Centurion1

The problem is how this unproven THEORY is being used to indoctrinate children into eco-freaks and how in us schools at least it is treated as scientific dogma.

Sorry, you made a valid point, but in an exceedingly and humorously hypocritical manner. Remember, a theory is something that has been observed countless times, something that is backed up by immense amounts of data and general scientific consensus.

A theory is a couple of steps away from a natural law. The only distinction between a theory and a law is generally the fact that a law must be capable of being observed directly. If something is not capable of that, then it must forever remain branded as "theory" until it is observed directly.

Thus, to call something in science an "unproven theory" is no different from saying "pleasurable torture" or 'harmonious annoyance". Do not mix the popular definition of the noun "theory" with the proper scientific one. Otherwise you just made a serious miscalculation. Such as those people who dismiss evolution on the grounds "it is just a theory - the evolutionists themselves say so". How false. Evolution on a large scale has not been well-observed, but no serious scientist doubts for even a nanosecond the validity of the "theory" of evolution. A scientist regards a theory as equal to fact for all practical purposes.

Thus, the global warming is a hypothesis, meaning someone came up with a suggestion, a wild idea, it was already brought up in a community of scientists, then thoroughly researched, and only after that was a hypothesis formed, or a very well-educated guess. Now we are in the long period of experimentation, in hopes of proving or disproving the hypothesis. However, let no one tell you global warming is a "theory". No, it is a long way from that.

**Centurion1** · 10-14-2009, 20:32

i understand the difference between a theory and law. I was typing this really quickly as i often do and wasn't really thinking. I do not have the luxury of time today to type long well thought out papers.

Of course thank you for your correction, you are indeed right.

Most importantly my point got across

**Aemilius Paulus** · 10-14-2009, 22:46

Originally Posted by Centurion1

i understand the difference between a theory and law. I was typing this really quickly as i often do and wasn't really thinking. I do not have the luxury of time today to type long well thought out papers.

Ahh, I see

. Good thing you do know. Most do not.

**Centurion1** · 10-14-2009, 23:20

Sorry i was at school.

You do no AP that while you and i may not consider it a theory, many people do. I once heard a man on MSNBC claiming the layer of warming. Had me on the floor laughing.

**Aemilius Paulus** · 10-14-2009, 23:37

Originally Posted by Centurion1

Sorry i was at school.

So was I, at the Uni library

, when I posted then.

Originally Posted by Centurion1

I once heard a man on MSNBC claiming the layer of warming. Had me on the floor laughing.

Well, I have long lost the last vestiges of respect I had for those news corporations... Every day I see Internet videos highlighting the latest blunders. Especially CNN and Fox. I have never seen MSNBC. As a matter of fact, I never actually saw any of the news channels on the telly - I was just watching Internet videos of their farce.

**Centurion1** · 10-14-2009, 23:45

Lol but i was in a class, supposed to be taking a political compass quiz for ap government (i thought it foolish to do what i have already done, twice....)

Nah MSNBC is simply the far left of the three with cnn sort of middle but leaning more towards left. and fox the only right wing network. Seen all together you get the full picture.....

and the worst part about this was one. The man had a phd and two the news anchor just nodded their head and said so true.