Does science apply to 'global warming'?

Question

The scientific method goes: observation, hypothesis, testing -> theory. Over time, with significant testing and no counter examples, theory becomes accepted fact.

We can observe a small rise in average temperatures over the last couple hundred years. The earth has warmed a bit - on the order of a few degrees, 2 or 3 if I recall correctly. Even this is debated on a number of points that seem reasonable, but even if accurate the warming is not as dire as a casual observer would expect from all the alarmists running about. One would think the earth had warmed 10 degrees in the last 5 years from listening to the media.

What is really debateable is the cause. The ASSUMPTION that CO2 and other gasses are the cause has not been sufficiently tested. Indeed, the attempt to find a cause can ruin's one career.

So why all the pressure to not test the hypothesis that 'greenhouse gases' are the cause?

See the following:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

Answer 1

Watermelons.

Green on the outside and red on the inside.
The environementalist religion does not stand for dissent any more than Red China or Stalinist Russia.

It is really sad that people listen to movie stars and politicians, but their eyes glaze over and they take no interest in ACTUALLY READING what the SCIENTISTS have to say.

Latest theory, whic is actually being tested (what a good idea) is that the Sun is responsible for the cycles of global warming and cooling going far back into history, far before man.
Increased solar activity means a stronger magnetic field, which blocks cosmic rays. The cosmic rays tend to interact in the atmosphere to create clouds. More solar activity = less cosmic rays = less clouds = warmer Earth. Simple. And it would explain the long history of warming and cooling.

Of course, the press is probably going to label it "cosmic ray theory" because most people think "cosmic" is something kind of crazy, like astrology.

I think when Al Gore gets the Nobel Peacew Prize, it will be the final proof for me that man-made global warming is total BS. The Peace Prize was given to Arafat, a North Korean dictator, Jimmy Carter, some woman who says she wants to kill George Bush, and the Campaign to Ban Land Mines. All of which show how truly pathetic, evil, or just plain useless the Peace Prize winners tend to be.

Answer 2

All that bad CO2 is produced whenever u burn anything. I normally say Mother nature but ma-by just the way the earth is programed. I often ask the question of where do u think our original fossil fuels came from. They came from plants and the plants take in the CO2 and give us back oxygen. So this means that the CO2 problem has already been taken care of. Then there is methane ,a very light gas that will go very high in our atmosphere. I cannot find where that huge lake of methane gas is. How do the environmentalist get their measurements??? The gas is not there where did it go?? This cover 2 of the big green house gases and I cant find the data to say that green house gas is a problem or not.

Answer 3

The earth temperature isn't believed to have varied by more than 1.8 digrees in the past 10,000 years considering that the current increase is significant.

Answer 4

Nice. I wish the same scientific method would be robustly applied to the theory of evolution.

Answer 5

yes it does because it is the warming of the earth so it is about earth science