Why Global Warming is called a theory, rather than an hypothesis? Does anybody in this section understand that it if it is a theory it places the burden of proof on them to explain all the observable facts AND predict some observations that Global Warming doesn't, so they can be tested? Or is it all about flaming and repetition?
2007-07-31 03:25:06 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment ➔ Global Warming
A lot of people don't understand the definition of teory or hypothesis. So--here you are:
1) a hypothesis is an unproven statement. It's an idea about what MIGHT be correct. It's usually phrased as a statement rahter than a question for technical reasons having to do with the logic of schientific method--but itsessentially a question to which we don't yet have a clear answer.
2) A Theory is a set of statements that, taken together, provide an explanation for the ovserved phenomenon under considerationn. However, for these statements to be part of a theory, they have to be fully tested and validated (proven, if you will). All statements in a theory start as hypotheses.
Thus--originally (decades ago) global warming--and its human causes--were hypotheses. Now, however, after a massive amount of research, all the specific points of the theory (the individual statements that make up the theory) have been thoroughly tested and have massive support. Thus there is now a full scientific consensus on the existance of global warming--and its causes in human action. The "debate" so-called skeptics keep yapping about does not exist except in their own minds.
2007-07-31 04:39:09 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋
Mostly Flaming and repetition. Yahoo Answers does have some people who will site sources and explain their answers, but mostly it is people who just want to give their opinion without any support(or are to lazy to back it up which is just as bad). If you want proof, you might want to wait a couple weeks before checking for an answer to a question like this. Best of luck getting the answers you want.
2007-07-31 10:35:58 · answer #2 · answered by Woot 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's all flaming and repetition. This is Y! Answers and I've learned not to expect too much.
2007-07-31 20:00:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes
2007-07-31 10:29:31 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
I agree, and as we search through the data, we find more reasons to question the conclusions. More scientists are finding other data that does not support the conclusions.
One is CO2Science.com
All of these questions need to be satisfactorily answered.
2007-07-31 11:22:49 · answer #5 · answered by GABY 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Yea, repetition. Mostly it depends on taking money from the correct source.
Take money from an oil corporation, and your repetition is toast, take $250,000.00 from a democrat political campaign and you're an expert.
2007-07-31 10:59:20 · answer #6 · answered by Dr Jello 7 · 2⤊ 4⤋