- Joined
- Feb 20, 2008
- Messages
- 18,160
- Reaction score
- 1,071
As I said in another post, proponents of manmade climate change theory should have undisputable data before they should be allowed to craft policy.
The conversion of fuel to energy dictates the totality of life on this planet.
The biggest differences between the theories is that gravity can be consistently measured (pulling objects at 9.81 m/s/s).
Also the theory of gravity has a rock-solid standard of falsifiability.
That is the main standard that proponents of manmade climate change theory lack. A standard of falsifiability is the fundamental requirement to call anything "science".
You're missing the point I was making. Just because we might not have the right answers (we at the very least don't have the exact answer) doesn't mean that the issue isn't an objective one. Mathematical problems are a simple way of showing that something is objective, regardless of whether a person solves it correctly or not. A subjective issue regarding global warming would be a question like "is global warming bad?".
As for gravity, you're talking about the law of gravity when you talk about measuring it. We know what happens due to gravity. What we're unsure of is why it's happening. We've had several theories of gravity as they've had to be replaced since we've established that they failed to describe certain things. Gravitation is also a lot more complex than just noticing what happens when you drop something on Earth, so a problem with establishing a theory is that there are aspects we have no way of testing.
But all of this is pretty much a side track so we can probably move on to the topic again.