Isn't AGW just a theory ?

Question

I feel ( and know ) that it is extremely irresponsible to base policy decisions on nothing more than theories and computer models . As far as comp mods go....garbage in = garbage out , and when it comes to the idea of AGW ....well... it is nothing more than a theory supported , not by PROOF but countless other theories . Some of which , like the "Positive Feedback " theory are absurd . So... Do you really want to let the Federal Government base policy decisions or even make Laws ( like what kind of light bulbs you are allowed to use in your own home ) on a theory without any proof . One more note.... It truly saddens me that the long running bond of trust between scientists and the public has been almost completely destroyed

Answer 1

AGW is a scientific theory, which I think you're confusing with a layman theory.

When the average joe says "here's my theory", it basically means he's guessing.  When a scientist has a theory, it's based on the scientific evidence.  A hypothesis is essentially a guess, whereas a theory is an explanation.  A theory can never be proven, only disproven.  So based on your opinion, we should never ever act on global warming, even if it's about to destroy our entire society.

Evolution and gravitation are also theories.  What's irresponsible is to ignore the best scientific explanations available just because you don't like them.

Answer 2

All of science is theory.

That doesn't invalidate it.

What validates a theory is the preponderance of evidence for or against it.

This gets judged by the peer review process, where scientists bring their findings to other scientists to see whether it passes their scrutiny.

It's been said that the IPCC 4th assessment report, on climate change research, is the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific paper in the history of science.  That is very convincing evidence.  I don't know what could be more convincing.

  No one claims it is absolute proof.

They give the theory 95% probability of being true.

The overwhelming preponderance of evidence says AGW is a valid theory.  

The worst that could happen if we do what scienists suggest, and fix the problem, is maybe some economic upheaval.

(which I don't believe- clean energy will improve the economy. What we are doing is not only destructive but wasteful or resources and money.

The worst that could happen if the scientists are right and we don't do anything, is the end of the world as we know it, and perhaps the end of the human species, and half the other species on earth.

We have the technology now to solve the problem, and the technology will get much better as we move along.  

http://www.setamericafree.org/blueprint....

A Blueprint For U.S. Energy Security

We are being misled about what is possible with alternative energy.  We give it miniscule subsidies, compared with oil, especially, and conventional power, in general.

"There are areas in Denmark and Germany who use more than 40 percent of their electricity from wind. From what I have read, they are less concerned about the intermittency than we are in the United States even though we aren't at 1 pecent yet. Why? Because we are told by the fossil fuel guys, hey, can't use wind, can't use solar, what about the intermittency. If wind gets up to 40 percent of the electricity we use and solar gets up to 40 of the electricity we use, the other percents of electricity we need can be made up from the fossil fuel plants that are still there. If they are run less at full power, they can last a long time. That can be your electricity `battery.'"

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/...

Denmark gets 20% of it's energy from wind.

Here's one proposal that would power the whole country on affordable solar power, spending less in public money than we have spent building the high speed information highway in America, and over about the same 35 year time span.

Scientific American  A Solar Grand Plan

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-so...

"Abu Dhabi is not content to just sell you the oil that fuels your SUV; now its going to sell you sunshine to keep your lights on and power your electric car when the internal combustion engine goes the way of the buggy whip. Masdar, the oil-rich emirate’s $15 billion renewable energy venture, and Spanish technology company Sener on Wednesday announced a joint venture called Torresol Energy to build large-scale solar power plants in Australia, Europe, the Middle East, North Africa and the United States."

What they have their eyes on, is the very same American southwest deserts, where the authors of the Scientific American proposal are suggesting Americans build solar power plants.

"The irony is too rich to leave unsaid: A leading oil producer invests billions in carbon-free energy while a leading consumer of fossil fuels - the United States - continues to subsidize Big Oil while offering only tepid support for green technology. It is inevitable that climate change will foster the rise of renewable energy - the only question is which countries and companies will profit from the new energy economics. It is entirely possible that the U.S. will trade energy dependence of one kind - on Middle East oil - for another - on Middle East and European solar technology - in the era of global warming. It’s no coincidence that most of the solar energy companies with contracts to build utility-scale power plants in California and the Southwest have overseas roots - Ausra hails from Australia, BrightSource was founded by American-Israeli pioneer Arnold Goldman, Solel is based in Israel and Abengoa is headquartered in Spain."

from Green Wombat

http://blogs.business2.com/greenwombat/

We give over ten times as much in subsidies to the oil industry, as we do for solar, wind, geothermal etc combined.  

And what you hear in the media is how solar needs subsidies, as if that was some strike against it.  It's disinformation.

"The global warming is a hoax believers don't understand the difference between informed opinion, uninformed opinion, misinformed opinion and totally ignorant opinions."  

  gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/11/236...

posted by LeeAnnG

"Scientific skepticism is a healthy thing. Scientists should always challenge themselves to expand their knowledge, improve their understanding and refine their theories. Yet this isn't what happens in global warming skepticism. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and yet eagerly, even blindly embrace any argument, op-ed piece, blog, study or 15 year old that refutes AGW"

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v06/n08/...

"honest skeptics persist at trying to convince their colleagues of alternative conclusions, and they do it by submitting their manuscripts for publication. If they do not get published, then it is because their data, their arguments, their assumptions, and their conclusions did not stand up to careful scrutiny, not because reviewers were predisposed to a different opinion. Oh sure, some reviewers can be opinionated and have their own political ax to grind, but with persistence, you can find enough fair academics to get any legitimate conclusion published. My years as a journal editor, as a reviewer, and as an author of scientific articles validates my position that most academics will give a valid minority position a fair evaluation."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Comparin...

Compares IPCC projections to actuall observations.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/...

Great site showing overwhelming support for IPCC findings.

"A handful of "contrarian" scientists and public figures who are not scientists have challenged mainstream climatologists' conclusions that the warming of the last few decades has been extraordinary and that at least part of this warming has been anthropogenically induced. What must be emphasized here is that, despite the length of this section, there are truly only a handful of climatologist contrarians relative to the number of mainstream climatologists out there."

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know - except maybe Newton's second law of dynamics".

Dr. James Baker - NOAA

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/...

Great site showing overwhelming support for IPCC findings.

Answer 3

We base a lot of our reasoning on theories,  like the theory  of universal gravitation.

Proof is what is always suspect. When we know something is true because we have a proof of it, that is time to be careful that we have not messed up completely.  A proof  says we have stopped looking for justification for our theory.

We wil always have to make policy decisions based on incomplete information, because there will be incomplete information for all positions.

The theory that AGW is not of importance is just as much a theory as AGW is a theory, So we have to evaluate and choose which theory has the greatest consequences if true.

We can make best estimates as to whether AGW theory is true, but that does not so much matter as the question If AGW is valid, what then.

We do not entirely need to know that burning up all of our fossil fuels this generation may be a disaster, to decide that we might be better off to try harder to get better use from the limited supplies the world still has. So we set off on a course to conserve our fossil fuels knowing that it has some good secondary reasons for the policy.

Regardless of the theoretical uncertainty about causes, we anticipate that we will see the arctic reserves of methane hydrate melt and the methane enter the atmosphere. Planning to use that in stead of using coal or oil does not entirely depend on correctness of AGW theory.

When accepting or rejecting a theory still leads to  a conclusion that a given course of action is sound, we do not need  an ultimate proof to take action.

Answer 4

"Zach it's not widely accepted as true."

Utter fiction Scientists have even made the rare move of appealing directly to the public through major news services that they are united on this and it is happening.

And still deniers try to push this dead horse!

Answer 5

Yes it is just a theory, and I for one don't want to see any policy decisions made that are based on the theory.

If however they could start to have some repeated success in accurately predicting real world outcomes based on the theory my opinion may start to change.

It can be very dangerous for government to set policy when they have no way of knowing what the consequences will be.

If politicians had acted swiftly on the global cooling fears of the seventies and proceeded to artificially melt the ice caps, and yes that was a proposed solution at the time, what kind of mess would we have on our hands now??

Answer 6

While not about AGW, the article titled "Science and Pseudo-Religion" in this 07 AIG newsletter brings up some important points that easily relate to the theory of anthropogenic global warming:

http://aig.org.au/assets/22/AIGNews_Feb0...

Answer 7

Yeah its just a theory.  I just did a paper on Global Warming proving its a natural occurrence, and humans are a pretty small contributer to it.

Zach it's not widely accepted as true.

Its normal for the world to go through changes.

Answer 8

Conjecture and opinions with the same weight as astrology.

Answer 9

It is not even a theory yet, it is still only a hypothesis, which has a higher degree of uncertainty.

It has also become a political doctrine, so, in a free society, we have the right to believe in, or not. What we don't have the right to do is force our beliefs on people who don't agree with us.

Answer 10

You are right, it is a theory.  When they learn to predict accurately changes in temperature, then it will become law.  But that is not happening.  Did they predict this shift in the PDO, that has now people calling for ten years of cooling?

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroo...

Events like these catch them off guard, and then they have to make changes in their predictions in order to save their reputations.  That just shows how poor our understanding of the earth's climate is.

Answer 11

Its a theory yes, but just like the big bang theory it widely accepted to be correct.

Answer 12

Yea but it is being toted as fact. However any truly thinking person can look at the facts themselves and see that it is not getting warmer globally and that the ice on the caps is growing not shrinking. Along with other things along those same lines.

It is all about the money and that is the facts.

And Thor a theory according to the dictionary is also a conjecture or guess. That is pretty flimsy and not only not proven wrong but not even tested yet.

Answer 13

It's not even a theory, it's a downright lie.

Answer 14

A theory is an idea no one has been able to prove wrong, yet, but no one has been able to prove its 100% true either.   If you call it a theory its much more likely to be true than false.

Answer 15

You are correct.

AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming or 'man-made/human influenced' climate change) is, as you said, 'a theory'.  But I just want to point out, so is... evolution, creationism, relativity and even say... gravity.  Something in 'Science' being considered a 'theory' is supposed to suggest it is the accepted opinion among the experts.   Someone once said, "theories can't be proven, just disproven", so who knows if we'll ever get beyond it being 'just a theory' which is pretty important... btw - I was a little confused by your insertion of the word 'just'.

But despite all that, and to answer the extended part of your question fairly... I'm not sure it is fair to say that it is 'irresponsible' to form decisions based on these 'theories'.  How would we have gotten to where we are today otherwise?

In Science, theories do change.

I'm saddened also, that people are so quickly ready to throw Science under the bus.  Personally though, I do greatly appreciate all that Science has and continues to give us which enriches our lives and regardless of what can be said about the level of contribution humans may have to global warming or any other climatic, geological or ecological condition, I think there are enough reasons to continuing pursuing the research in these areas, especially in the way of pollution, because we sure do pollute a lot and from the looks of it, will continue to do so.

If a country is doing all it can to encourage it's citizens to reduce energy consumption, that may be a matter of national security on some level as well.  I don't think it's entirely outrageous to ban something like incandescent light bulbs on a massive scale if it can be shown that doing so clearly will help to reduce both pollution and say fossil fuel dependency without compromising the ability to 'light' one's home.

As our societies continue to grow, we should also evolve to meet the demands of our growing population and energy needs.

I do agree that we must try to do this without disrupting our way of life and our economic stability.

BTW - One other thing, going back to your question (and the 'just a theory' thing) which I find interesting here... I'm convinced that what you were trying to ask here based on the other stuff you said was "Isn't AGW just a hypothesis?  But your question instead "Isn't it just a theory"... Am I right in my assumption that you have now reduced the AGW 'theory' to mere speculation?  But for now, I'm rather intrigued how you will choose a best answer on this given the exact wording of your question.  How does one answer that? ... Yes, it's 'just' a theory, it is not a 'fact', there is no proof, etc., that's what you were looking for originally were you not?  Now you will be instead looking for, "No, it's not 'just' a theory (which is to not even agree with you that it is even 'just a theory')... it's not a theory at all, it's just an idea, etc..."  I don't know, I just find that all to be kind of interesting and ironic in some way.

Listen, I know you are in fact a Global Warming skeptic, one who originally passed it off as bs, a hoax even but now have come around to the new thinking of current GW skeptics and now instead of arguing whether Global Warming and climate change is something which is occurring... you don't exactly deny that any longer, so you just look for evidence which effects climate change 'naturally' but still choose to believe that humans have no part.

Either way... I hope that 'Science' will eventually prove you right because I'm sure even you have heard enough by now as to the type of consequences we'll have to be concerned with otherwise.  So with that said... whether or not, you're truly a skeptic (of AGW, not 'Science'... you should maybe refrain from taking that sort of position), surely you can see that AGW is something which has given many intelligent people in the world, real concern about our future.  That to me sounds important enough that we should continue to try and understand it better and it doesn't hurt to give whatever reasons people have concluded this is real, some benefit of the doubt.  Maybe the time for fossil fuels has and should, just come to an end.  Regardless of AGW theory.

I believe... humankind will benefit more greatly in the long term from adopting energy alternatives sooner than later.  And in the US... I believe too, that we have the ability to become a leader in a post-oil world.  Aside from setting a positive example, this is something I'm sure we can benefit and prosper from.  Just think of it as, a new silicon valley gold rush, besides... I'm sick of being reminded how much I'm paying a bunch of rich oil shieks my hard earned case every time I go to the gas pump these days... and it certainly doesn't make me feel better knowing that some of that money goes directly to funding terrorists, so if we can reduced our oil dependence, let's please do, even if the adjustment is a little awkward at first, I think the positives really do out-weigh the negatives, and surely before long, we'll be past that period of transition, and perhaps... despite just reducing pollution or financing terrorism... just maybe, and most likely... even paying *less* for energy.

I believe the move to making the transition from fossil fuels, to cleaner, more abundant and more fuel efficient energy and technologies is today, not tomorrow.  Understanding what you are saying, making to quick of a jump will hurt us, etc... of course, we don't want to cripple ourselves in the process, nobody wants that, but surely, we have to do this and the sooner we get started, the better, I don't see how you or anyone can possibly disagree with that.  And with that said... the question again... why isn't our government taking a more pro-active approach to encouraging alternatives to fossil fuels?  And, well... maybe we should all stop wasting our breath, and perhaps just see what happens once the competition is out of the oval office.  And maybe, learn from this... we should never elect another heir to an oil dynasty to the level of supreme commander and 'decider'.  How can anyone possibly think that all the decisions coming from the white house will be in the best interest 'of the people' if that in any way should bring harm to the oil industry for example... isn't this just common sense?  What is it called... 'conflict of interests'... So yeah... things need to change, and I'm optimistic, they now soon will, and further more, I'm confident that the changes will be positive, both in the short-term as well as the long-term.  And don't worry... the only way we'll be forced to converting from fossil fuels in such a dramatic way which would seriously hurt our economy and way of life, is if we wait 'too long' and than try to do it last minute.

So please, everyone, support alternative energy, today!

Answer 16

It's a theory based on the premise that the Earths climate is very sensitive to small changes in the atmosphere.  It's not entirely proven false, but it is highly speculative and not in good agreement with the real world global temperature data.