Why "Just a Theory" Pisses off Scientists

zoo,

Well said; however, it must be stated that a theory is ALWAYS open for debate or discussion. A theory differs substantially from a law in this regard. One of the problems with global warming is that the other side is not invited to the debate, and in fact, has been shouted down, labelled by at least one prominent American (RFK, Jr.) as being traitors for merely questioning the issue.

Most of the "opposition" has been stating their case poorly as regards global warming. The questions many of us have do not revolve around whether or not global warming is happening (it's hard to dispute, really), but how much of an impact we are having as a species, and how much of an impact "corrective" action is likely to have.

The fact is, many GW alarmists ignore the evidence we have that Venus and Mars are getting warmer at the same rate as the Earth, yet without the presence of human activity. There is evidence the sun itself is growing warmer, evidence that would seem to be consistent with what is actually known about our nearest star.

You tell us to lend more credence to theories, but you are seemingly oblivious to the fact that much of the scientific community selectively ignores some theories in favor of other theories. If scientists showed as much respect for competing theories as you are admonishing us non-scientists to show for THEIR theories, perhaps we would be more accepting.

A good example of why I don't take anything at face value, zoologist: in the 1970's, I was in grade school. We were taught the world's oil supply would last only 20-30 years. In the 1980's, my brothers and sisters went through grade school. They were taught the world's oil supply would last only 20-30 years. In the 1990's, my sister-in-law went through grade school. At the risk of being repetitious, I will state that she was taught the world's oil supply would last only 20-30 years. What are today's children being taught? Yup, you guessed it! Now, all of these projections were based on scientifically tested theories; theories that failed to take into account many other variables. It is not irrational to assume that GW science is equally flawed.

It is truly frightening to me when I look back on the history of science, and realize that more than 2000 years ago, scientists thought they had reached the pinnacle of knowledge, and that the intervening years have brought no measure of humility to the field. It is not unreasonable to speculate that scientists 500 years hence could consider our scientists as unlearned as we now consider the scientific community in Galileo's day.

Yes, the word "theory" is used too casually, but remember, "just a theory" is a reminder of the fallibility of man.

however, it must be stated that a theory is ALWAYS open for debate or discussion.

I agree.

but you are seemingly oblivious to the fact that much of the scientific community selectively ignores some theories in favor of other theories.

No, not oblivious...I just didn't address the issue of multiple theories.  I'm just separating the scientific definition from the colloquial one.  There are indeed several ways of explaining something...it's just a matter of time to see which one wins out.

A good example of why I don't take anything at face value, zoologist:

Nor should anyone.  It's all about questioning things and further investigation...that's what keeps scientists employed.

Yes, the word "theory" is used too casually, but remember, "just a theory" is a reminder of the fallibility of man.

Thanks for agreeing with me.  I suppose the "just a theory" thing could be seen as such. 

The point of this article was to divert the prejudice people seem to feel when they hear the word "theory." Admittedly a theory can be scrapped if it doesn't hold up...but there is something substantial to support it for it to exist in the first place and should be taken seriously, not accepted as fact in any way, but considered as a possibility until research shows otherwise.

~Zoo

Heh, I'll take a theory over a myth any day.

This was a good 'un Zoo.   

Oh, no, I'd definitely take the myth, so long as the mythus doesn't find out

Oh, no, I'd definitely take the myth, so long as the mythus doesn't find out

  

Heh, I'll take a theory over a myth any day.

I like myths, actually...as long as I treat them as myths.

This was a good 'un Zoo.

Thank ya, Roy.

Oh, no, I'd definitely take the myth, so long as the mythus doesn't find out

 

Treading dangerous ground there.

~Zoo

The questions many of us have do not revolve around whether or not global warming is happening (it's hard to dispute, really), but how much of an impact we are having as a species, and how much of an impact "corrective" action is likely to have

all of these projections were based on scientifically tested theories; theories that failed to take into account many other variables

First Comment: what you dont realize is that ANY change from the natural Earth's environment has a huge impact on its natural ecological balance. I am sure you know that ANY rise, again ANY rise , in temp over 32F (0 C) will melt ice. So our impact, regardless of its amount, is dangerous. When you start to be able to measure that increase in temp that is when you know the trouble is already here. You better start doing something to limit the damage to what has already happened and HOPE you succeed in stopping the march toward more danger or may be take a step back toward the natural balance.

Since you already admit that it is happening and we contribute some then you already admitting all what is necessary to tell you that we are in danger and IF we dont do something NOW to stop or reverse the trend we are heading toward a disatster. it may take a 100 more years but by then it will be impossible to stop or reverse the effect.

If you ignore what you already know, then you are taking a big risk on your future and that of others too.

The key is to realize that ANY increase above Earth's natural temp variations IS dangerous. That change has already been measured and documented beyond any doubt.

Second Comment: Oil Reserves Estimates is like you said are projections. They are not based on any theory. they are based on statistics of geological surveys of probable sites of oil traps. Even Now with the latest and best technologies we can use, that probability is no better than 20%. it used to be 10% and even less. You cant compare that to a theory as Zoo explained. I think that is part of the problem. non-scientific arguments can lead to a lot of confusion regarding the facts and how things should be judged.

I disagree, TA. Species have risen and fallen through the years; what makes us so arrogant as to think we are any different? The earth will continue to "do its thang" long after we are gone.

Harsh, yeah, but that's kind of the nature of the beast.



You're kind of preaching to the choir here, TA. We're fairly staunch conservationists. However, I am compelled to question a few things:

1. Why isn't AL Gore held to the same standard? Why is his purchase of "carbon credits" considered adequate to give him a pass to live a self indulgent lifestyle? If the Earth truly is in imminent danger, why aren't he and others living like it?

2. Why are we not supporting the development of Third World countries along a more eco-friendly path? They have the fortune of not having to revisit the mistakes that we made in the early years of the Industrial Revolution; why are we not encouraging them towards a greener development?

3. Why do we not support the efforts of Americans to live greener lives? I assure you, TA, if I moved my family into a 500 square foot house to increase efficiency, I would receive a visit from our local child welfare authorities not long after. And nobody would be there to defend me, not from Greenpeace or anywhere else. And as you well know, 500 square feet of living space is substantially more than many of the world's citizens will ever enjoy.



Do you want me to point to the number of scientific theories that have been debunked over the years, TA? I believe if scientists fail to learn from their mistakes (as EVERY generation of scientists has been arrogant to believe they possess all knowledge), then we stand to suffer from continued failed efforts centered around those theories. "Just" a theory may be oversimplifying it, as zoologist points out, but the truth is, if something is theory, there should be debate (although I will concede, some theories are more equal than others).

Great conversation points, TA. JoeUser needs more of this!

Do you want me to point to the number of scientific theories that have been debunked over the years, TA?

You dont have to go far.  Just to the 70s and Global Cooling.

And the problem with TA, Al Gore, et. al.'s thinking is two fold.

1. Where are the studies that show man has made even a slight dent in the climate (or even the audacity to think we can)

2. And if Man is just a bystander, and not causing the warming, where are the studies that show that doing SOMETHING will not be more harmful if man is not responsible?

Al gore is like a child who finds a live shell.  Instead of doing nothing and letting an expert handle it, he wants to take a hammer to it to make sure it is alive or not. 

There's also the mathematical side of theories. Perhaps some people just simply can't disassociate the two. In mathematics a theory is seen as an idea that is true in "most" cases but hasn't yet been proven in every circumstance. So, while there may or may not be exceptions to it, the theory is incapable of holding as much water as a law. Honestly, depending on who you talk to, a theory could easily be discredited simply because it hasn't shown true in all cases yet.

Reply By: Gideon MacLeish

I disagree, TA. Species have risen and fallen through the years; what makes us so arrogant as to think we are any different? The earth will continue to "do its thang" long after we are gone.Harsh, yeah, but that's kind of the nature of the beast.

What makes us any different, are you kidding me? This planet ain’t seen nothing like us. Humans have an enormous ability to upset the checks and balances of this planets environment. Hell we could kill most all life and plunge this planet into a nuclear winter that would last thousands of years with the push of a button. Life and the climate are very much connected. Microscopic aquatic life terraformed this planet, and made it habitable for terrestrial life a few hundred million years ago, and they’re what keeps us breathing oxygen today.

The earth self regulates its climate and can recover from just about anything but this usually spells doom for several species. As temperatures warm up you get increased cloud cover regulating global temperatures. Increased clouds everywhere accept the polar ice caps. And as they melt exposing more ocean, (which absorbs far more solar energy than the white ice), the polar temperatures increases and the melting accelerates. Then the increase of fresh water in the poles alters the currents so they don’t move warm water up from the equator to the poles, again regulating temperatures. Data that farmers around the world have collected on the Pan evaporation rate show that it has decreased by as much as 20% in some areas over the past 50 years. If the sun is getting hotter why are we receiving less solar energy on the surface than we were 50 years ago? The theory for that is man made particles; particularly pollution from commercial jets are smaller than natural particles. The smaller water droplets that form around these smaller particles create denser more reflective clouds that reflect more sunlight back into space. How much hotter would it be if not for this effect? How far the climate swings before its self-regulating methods kick in determines how much pain we suffer.

Starting to get a little complicated isn’t it? Fact is we’re not going to know anytime soon, even if Florida disappears from the map we’re still not going to know for sure if we had anything to do with it. It could be a few hundred years before we know enough to say for sure. So if we do anything it’s going to have to be partly on faith.

I know quite a few scientist and I can tell you there’s no professional community that even comes close to their integrity, humility and devotion to their work. People that think scientists are arrogant and deceitful obviously don’t know any. Climatology and geology are shit jobs. The pay is lousy and they have to work in some of the most inhospitable places on earth. But most would work for just enough funding to have the job. It’s the passion for discovery and they’re not impressed by politics or greed. When they’re wrong about something it’s because they didn’t have all the facts, not because they’re trying to hide the truth.

Humanity is not likely to be made extinct by anything Mother Nature throws at us, but that doesn’t mean it’s not going to suck. I think if we can spend trillion+ dollars and give up some freedoms to maybe make us a little bit safer, we can certainly take a convenience and prosperity hit to maybe avoid or lesson the affect of this real possibility as well.

Reply By: Dr Guy

1. Where are the studies that show man has made even a slight dent in the climate (or even the audacity to think we can)2. And if Man is just a bystander, and not causing the warming, where are the studies that show that doing SOMETHING will not be more harmful if man is not responsible?

You say we’re insignificant fleas and it would be the height of arrogance to think we have any impact on the climate at all, but then you say if we try and curb this non-affect we’re having, we might accidentally screw it up. So which is it Doc can we affect the climate or not?

There's that human arrogance again. Species have overgrazed their habitat many times through history. Top level predators have reduced many species lower on the food chain to near extinction. We may be the latest, and questionably, the greatest, but we are not irreplaceable. Nature always finds a way stubby.



Deliberately deceitful? No. Arrogant? YES. Biased? YES! (which indicates to me they are poorly trained). And I know plenty, stubby, and have found few exceptions. You're proving my point when you question MY intelligence for daring to CHALLENGE what is considered in some communities to be conventional wisdom.

I made several salient points, none of which you addressed, stubby. It speaks to your credibility, IMEABO.



First and foremost, I disagree with the idea of stealing someone's money to address an agenda. Theft is not altruistic, it is criminal.

And then there's the argument about surrendering liberty. Perhaps you have a point, stubby. Perhaps we NEED to live under tyranny so that we stop taking for granted the liberties for which millions throughout history have fought and died. It obviously serves the common good if I'm incarcerated for letting my lawn grow too long, as it serves the common good to incarcerate someone for driving a vehicle with a v8 engine!

That very statement, stubby, is EXACTLY the reason I am concerned. The idea that we sacrifice LIBERTY for anything is to me unconscionable, and bordering on treasonous, as liberty is the very FOUNDATION of our ideas.

Nature always finds a way stubby.

Hey, that was in Jurassic Park.

~Zoo

Probably the only ACCURATE part of the movie...lol!

Probably the only ACCURATE part of the movie...lol!

Ouch.   Still, it's fun to pretend.   At least there's an attempt to make it sound plausible.

~Zoo

So which is it Doc can we affect the climate or not?

I dont want to find out if we can, and I dont beleive we are having that great of an impact.  But as you point out, if we try, we might be able to screw it up (Nuclear winter?), so why are we trying to fix something that even the most sophisticated computers cannot model or predict?

On your other point, no the earth is not a static environment.  Billions of years ago, the atmosphere had almost no oxygen.  As plants came about, they started converting the CO2 to O2, and we have the air we breath today.  Even after that, during the Triassic, Cretaceous (sp) and other episodes of the planet, volcanic activity poluted the air so badly (by today's sstandards) that life died out.  You ahve heard of the 3 mass extinctions, have you not?  Only one of which has been hypothesized to have been caused by a comet or meteor.

The only thing we do know about the earth is that it is not static.  And to think that we do know everything, and therefore have a definitive answer is the height of arrogance I spoke of.  You may be too young to remember, but during the "global Cooling" phase, some suggested we set off controlled nuclear explosions to counter act the effects of the global cooling.  Should we now try that to stop global warming?

Why should I save an enviroment that is going to be nuked anyway?

As plants came about, they started converting the CO2 to O2, and we have the air we breath today.

They helped a bit...but that was later.  The first major contributers(for awhile the ONLY ones) were cyanobacteria, actually believed to be the first lifeforms on earth.

~Zoo

Reply By: Gideon MacLeish

There's that human arrogance again. Species have overgrazed their habitat many times through history. Top level predators have reduced many species lower on the food chain to near extinction. We may be the latest, and questionably, the greatest, but we are not irreplaceable. Nature always finds a way stubby.

I thought you were a Christian, I must be thinking of someone else. Yes we’re just animals in pants, animals that within a century or so will be creating their own climate and ecosystem on Mars. Just think how fat our heads will be then.

Deliberately deceitful? No. Arrogant? YES. Biased? YES! (which indicates to me they are poorly trained). And I know plenty, stubby, and have found few exceptions. You're proving my point when you question MY intelligence for daring to CHALLENGE what is considered in some communities to be conventional wisdom.

I didn’t question you intelligence just critiqued you for making what I think are unfounded judgments on a group of people I still feel you know very little about.

I made several salient points, none of which you addressed, stubby. It speaks to your credibility, IMEABO.

It seems we’re booth selective on what points we respond too.

First and foremost, I disagree with the idea of stealing someone's money to address an agenda. Theft is not altruistic, it is criminal.And then there's the argument about surrendering liberty. Perhaps you have a point, stubby. Perhaps we NEED to live under tyranny so that we stop taking for granted the liberties for which millions throughout history have fought and died. It obviously serves the common good if I'm incarcerated for letting my lawn grow too long, as it serves the common good to incarcerate someone for driving a vehicle with a v8 engine!That very statement, stubby, is EXACTLY the reason I am concerned. The idea that we sacrifice LIBERTY for anything is to me unconscionable, and bordering on treasonous, as liberty is the very FOUNDATION of our ideas.

I said we could give up some convenience and prosperity for our own self-interest not liberty; you can thank the other threat for that. As I said your never going to know for sure, but at some point the evidence becomes great enough to justify action on behalf of those who disagree with action, as it did with terrorism. That’s not criminal that’s leadership.

It’s Government control 101 and it’s worked beautifully for thousands of years. Give the people a common threat or enemy that they can unite against and they’ll put up with anything. And in a democracy they’ll keep signing blank checks. The republicans have successfully claimed terrorism so the demacrats latched on to GW. If there was agenda it’s by the people whom historically had the most to gain from GW going away. It’s only recently that the dems have politicized it and given us an agenda for GW to stick around for any other reason than the science.

IMEABO

In My Extremely Arrogant Biased Opinion? If it is, I might have to whip this out on someone.

~Zoo 

You know what, now that I know the definition, you're right, it's used wrong all the time. For example, macroevolution is just a hypothesis. Global warming caused by human activity is just a hypothesis. Man, I feel so embarrassed. All this time saying they were just a theory and they're really not. No wonder scientists are so pissed off.

Reply By: Dr Guy

I dont want to find out if we can, and I dont beleive we are having that great of an impact. But as you point out, if we try, we might be able to screw it up (Nuclear winter?), so why are we trying to fix something that even the most sophisticated computers cannot model or predict?

I don’t want to find out ether, that’s why I feel we should take this seriously.

On your other point, no the earth is not a static environment. Billions of years ago, the atmosphere had almost no oxygen. As plants came about, they started converting the CO2 to O2, and we have the air we breath today. Even after that, during the Triassic, Cretaceous (sp) and other episodes of the planet, volcanic activity poluted the air so badly (by today's sstandards) that life died out. You ahve heard of the 3 mass extinctions, have you not? Only one of which has been hypothesized to have been caused by a comet or meteor.

As Zoo pointed out cyanobacteria started it. Even today 70% of our O2 comes from ocean bacteria like plankton.

Gamma ray burst and super volcano are the theories for the other two mass extinctions I believe.

The only thing we do know about the earth is that it is not static. And to think that we do know everything, and therefore have a definitive answer is the height of arrogance I spoke of. You may be too young to remember, but during the "global Cooling" phase, some suggested we set off controlled nuclear explosions to counter act the effects of the global cooling. Should we now try that to stop global warming?

On this we agree, we need to be careful we don’t muck around and really screw things up. I see what the USACE has done to the everglades almost every day but I do not feel there is any danger in simply trying to keep the earth as close to historically predictable conditions as possible. This is it; we got nowhere else to go in the foreseeable future.

macroevolution is just a hypothesis.

Actually, that's a pretty good theory.  Most, and I do mean most scientists work from this basis.  At least that's what they keep repeating in lab and in the classroom.  It seems pretty plausible to me.

~Zoo

Evolution vs. Creationism best explained via cartoons: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5_axOns0_8

~Zoo

Gamma ray burst and super volcano are the theories for the other two mass extinctions I believe.

The Gamma ray burst and Volcanoes are the new ones.  One thing is for sure however with all 3.  All are beyond man's control to do anything about (at this time).  And at least one was caused (if the theory holds water) by the earth itself.  And on these 2, both causes are still occurring and can occur again at any time.  The former being less likely than the latter since they say Yellowstone is due to erupt any day (in geological time) now.

But an interesting side bar to this.  My statement "at this time" insinuates that we may be able to do it in the future (prevent or ameliorate the effects).  Not by hugging a tree, but by technology that many like Gore would have us abandon in order to save the planet the pain of a couple of parts per billion more CO2 molecules.

Two things I most wish I could separate would be democrats from liberals and All Gore from global warming.