Perhaps Global Warming Enthusiasts and Evolutionists Can Help Explain This For Me and Others. .. . . . Why Do?

Question

Why do people give conflicting answers for the scientific proof of these theories ?

Case in Point .. . . .A while back I asked a question about Evolution . My question was similar to 'Why is Evolution called a 'Theory' ? Well, nearly every pro-evolution answer said that 'science isn't like in the olden days and there is no longer a need to prove a theory in the lab, but rather if you can't disprove it then it's obviously correct ' . Now I know that may sound silly to some, but that is what the many answerers were saying . Personally I think they're crazy and brain-washed, so I got off of Y/A for the day, as it seemed that I couldn't get a straight answer .
The Global Warming Theory is not the same, but it is similar in nature . With GW people like to quote specific scientists, while ignoring others . Are all the 'others' lying ? Are they ALL paid-off ? What kinda world-wide conspiracy would that be ?

I Love the answer given by the user named 'ME' . . .LMAO. . . . . He suggests that it would be wise to prepare whether we believe it or not . . . still LMAO. .. . . . .Well , Mr. ME , perhaps it would be wise to PREPARE for GOD whether you believe in Him or not !!
Ahhhh . . Classic Moments on Yahoo !!

Another Yahoo Classic Moment . . . My previous question was about Global Warming and 2 Pro GW answerers give Completely Contradictory 'Proof' of it . One said that it was a result of lack of moisture in the atmosphere and the other said it was the result of More moisture in the atmosphere !!
When is everyone gonna wake-up and smell the coffee ?

Answer 1

Trends of the Earth heating and cooling over history can be proven, human impact cannot.

Evolution is a religion, it requires faith to believe in something that has so much evidence to disprove it. Look into uniformity as part of the theory, then look at the rate of the expansion of the electromagnetic field and the rate of Earth's movement away from the sun. going back as far as evolution insist that we must go for life to accidentally happen, the Earth would have been too close to the sun to support life and the electromagnetic field would have been so tight that the earth would be too dense to support life. There are hundreds of other holes in the theory, but much of the science community chooses to ignore it. The facts don't conform to their religion. Now many may argue that creationists have the same problem. The difference is that religion does not pretend that they have physical proof. The faith behind their beliefs is admitted.

Answer 2

You get different answers because people have varying degrees of understanding on the issues.

A theory is a theory because it can not be directly proven.
A law is something that CAN be proven. This is something like E=mc2. Where you can test it and confirm the results.

A theory is something that fits our oberservations after a great amount of research.

Perhaps it would be better if you were familiar with the scientific method.
The scientific method goes as follows:
Come up with a question about something you see.
Why does this thing happen? or.. Why is that the way it is?

Then you come up with a hypothesis which is essentially a guess. Once you have a guess you go about testing that guess. You devise some experiment to test it and then you check your results against your guess. Do they agree or no? If they do not agree you revise your guess and do another test. You continue to do this untill your guess matches with what the experimental evidence is telling you. Evolution is a thoery that has stood up to years worth of exhaustive investigation and study. It is about as close to a law as you can get. However since you can not directly observe it happening, it can never be a law.
There are many such scientific theories, such as the theory of relativity, Quantum theory, etc. To say that these are "just theories" is really doing them an injustice. Not all theories are equal. Some are closer to being fact and more widely accepted than others.

Answer 3

Global warming and evolution are called "theories" because even those that study them don't completely understand how they work. It doesn't mean that they're wrong about what they HAVE found out or that they question if it's true or not.

Gravity is also called a "theory" for the same reasons. I haven't yet met anyone that disputes that gravity exists (although I suppose there could be a few), but I have NEVER heard anyone say that they understand how gravity works.

Answer 4

The theories are still incoherent and subject to revision, seemingly daily. But there's enough there to justify a more reasoned investigation, one without conclusions and causes in mind at the outset.

Then, even if it's proven that the earth has warmed AND it's a threat to the planet AND it's due to excessive CO2 emissions, only then can we begin to select sensible and plausible ways to reduce targeted emissions.

A massive international regulatory bureaucracy and punitive system of fines, taxes and restrictions seems like the last thing you'd want to do. I'm much more for incentives and marketplace forces.

Carrots usually work, whips usually do not. And hysteria NEVER works!

Answer 5

In science, a theory is a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. Einstein's most famous work has been proven to be true again and again even though it still called the Theory of relativity.
You're confusing that with how the word is used in every day usage. What most people call a theory is really an assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Answer 6

I'll wager good money that there are scientists that can find a way to interpret data and conclude that the Earth is the center of the universe. They would be few and far between. Why? Because the vast majority of scientists have viewed the data and come to a more acceptable and logical conclusion.

There will always be scientists that are wrong. It's not their job to be either right or wrong. Their job is to collect and interpret data and evidence in a controlled and logical manner that is reproducible. They draw conclusions from their research and the research of others and present them to their peers and to the general public.

You can either shrug your shoulders and believe whichever interpretation best suits your needs or go over the data yourself and draw your own conclusions.

Answer 7

An interesting question, to which unfortunately I'm not devoting enough time or brainpower to answer properly.

But let me try.

I'd say that yes, we should set down similar principles with which to judge. A consensus or "poll" of leading scientists is useful, but not dispositive. I guess I'd like to see the two (or more) schools of thought with respect to each issue debated, in a way laymen can understand. That way I can make up my own mind.

Has there ever been a high-level public debate on man-made climate change? We should have one.

I'm leaving evolution for another day. :)

Answer 8

Global warming is real..it is not a political issue as the GOP is making it out to be, it is an environmental issue with PROOF of its beginnings. How are the "GW people..ignoring all others"? The Polar Bears are dying, parts of Alaska are melting, etc. Maybe its the other side that are ignoring the "GW people," ever thought of that possibility? If we continue to ignore it (just like social security has been ignored forever), our children & grandchildren will reap what we have sown (just like we will with social security..that btw we are still paying for!).

Answer 9

First, the word theory has different meanings.
The common meaning is to signify speculation; it is an idea or opinnion. However, in science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena.

Secondly, why is scientific disparity behind global warming? While most scientists agree it is occurring, they disagree as to the prediction models. Also, much money has been invested to raise speculation and doubt.

Answer 10

Somtimes it helps to separate the answerer from the answer...in other words, was it the same exact people claiming both things? Or was it 'liberals' in general? If it isn't the same exact people saying those tweo things, i would chalk it up to conflicting opinions within a PARTY, and not within a PERSON. That being said, they are both theories backed up by overwhelming scientific evidence, with little to no evidence to the contrary. And polticians should stay out of it. Also, I do not care what Hilary has to say about Don Imus, either.