AGW is a hypothesis that's never been tested
| AGW is a hypothesis that's never been tested23-12-2013 20:46 | |
| aloysious☆☆☆☆☆ (1) |
Hey, I'm new here and this is my first post. Anyway, AGW is not a theory because it's never gotten past the hypothesis stage. It can't be tested because there's no way to have a control group which is needed to experimentally test a hypothesis. Therefore, there's no way to definitively state to what degree man has contributed to GW. |
| 06-01-2014 13:07 | |
| Liam1156☆☆☆☆☆ (2) |
You are absolutely correct! AGW is being treated as a fact when it has not been tested to a degree to which we can call it a theory. |
| 02-06-2014 16:15 | |
| Windy☆☆☆☆☆ (6) |
But, you get to keep your doctor. |
| 23-11-2014 05:46 | |
Abraham3 ★★☆☆☆(256) |
Would such a conclusion not also apply to all theories concerning our sun, other planets and the rest of the universe? Can you show me in any of the classic explanations of the scientific method where it says that it's mandatory to have a control? |
| 23-11-2014 13:46 | |
| Abraham3★★☆☆☆ (256) |
Obviously a control provides great value to an experiment. I am not attempting to say otherwise. But the climate as a whole is not the only situation in which providing a control is impractical. And a large number of experiments simulating certain limited conditions in the atmosphere can and have been conducted under laboratory settings and have made use of controls. An experiment in a lab with a small number of controllable and observable parameters will garner information - meaningful data - far more efficiently than will observations in situ featuring a near infinitude of uncontrollable, unobservable and occasionally unknowable parameters. Obviously, many of that multitude of parameters will have some influence on the outcome of processes taking place in Earth's climate. But our knowledge of those processes will be increased by laboratory experiments involving controlled conditions parametrically recreating conditions under study. Knowledge of the functions and process of climate is not unattainable. Perfect knowledge is, but that is the case throughout all of the natural sciences. Do not make the mistake of demanding proof where it is not physically possible to obtain or failing to act on strong indications due to that lack. |
| 10-12-2014 13:56 | |
| Abraham3★★☆☆☆ (256) |
And, hey, you do get to keep your doctor. You just might have to pay for him. |
Join the debate AGW is a hypothesis that's never been tested:
Related content
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| Magma vortex hypothesis about earthquakes | 37 | 16-08-2023 14:54 |
| "Trump won in a landslide" - A Falsifiable Hypothesis | 26 | 13-05-2022 01:32 |
| Many worlds hypothesis | 20 | 11-03-2021 21:26 |
| Candle Hypothesis | 20 | 27-08-2020 09:47 |
| How to create a hypothesis for Global Climate Change? | 56 | 13-02-2020 01:01 |