Is Global Warming the "Law of Global Warming" or is it a "Hypothesis."?

Question

Is the Scientific Method Being Comprimised by Politics?

Answer 1

No- Global warming is a religion. This is why terms like "believers" and "Deniers" are used so frequently in reference to ones position on the subject.

There is no objectivity, that word is never used.

If global warming was real, then we would be able to use words like "man is responsible because" rather than subjective qualifiers like "virtually certain", "probably" and "most likely"

Answer 2

In my opinion, all the conspiracy theory stuff about it being a hoax would be considered a theory, and a weak one.

Global warming probably isn't a theory, law, or hypothesis. It's just a conclusion reached from a set of data. There are hypotheses like tree growth being connected to CO2. That's being tested and appears to be true. If you're arguing whether Global Warming is true or not you're arguing with the thermometers. There are people who want to say it's a natural occurance that has happened many times. I'd say the burden of proof is on them. Because the current set of conditions falls outside conditions within those cycles, what they would need to show is whether current conditions fall within the limits as defined by the formulas and algorithims describing those cycles. If it does, then they could be right. So far, all they have shown is that individual parameters fall within those mathematical models, which isn't surprising, and proves nothing.

Answer 3

Without straying too far into semantics, Parrot is both right and a little wrong.

First, stating that a theory or hypothesis never ever becomes a law is simply not true, unless you narrowly define what constitutes theory. The proposal of a law often arises from theory - take any of the laws of thermodynamics or even Newton's universal gravitation - scientific method will still be used to demonstrate that the particular law applies "universally".

But Parrot is right about laws not making (or even needing to make) an explanation of a certain observable phenomenon. He is also right that AGW is a hypothesis (or I would describe it as a set of hypotheses), although I disagree that it has been thoroughly tested. Computer modeling does not constitute a "test".

And for anyone who claims that AGW is a theory, please direct me to the concise statement of that theory and the scientific journal in which it appears - and no, don't bother with a reference to any of the IPCC reports or joint statements by scientific institutions, as these don't represent the way in which acceptable hypothesis/theory is presented.

As for the last question, "is scientific method being compromised by politics?", I think there is little doubt that it is. I would prefer "hijacked" over "compromised". I bet that if you could privately poll scientists and somehow guarantee that their funding would not decrease in response to the poll's findings, that they would wish that politicians, media, and polarized populace would butt out and let them do their work.

Answer 4

It is a hypothesis and yes it is being compromised by politics. The Globe may be warming but what is no known is mankind's role in it. There are some that point to hurricanes recently but ignore the fact that none have hit the US in almost two years. They say our "carbon footprint" leads to drowning polar bears but they can not explain the dust bowl of the 1930's when there were not many cars at all. How come the Vikings were able to farm on Iceland but now it is cover by ice? Also, consider this, the "scientists" that are for global warming caused by man say the earth has risen in temperature by 1 degree, which I admit is globally a lot of retained heat. It's massive. Now consider exactly how accurate thermometers were 100 years ago. They were the old mercury needle ones and who is to say there wasn't an instance of parallax error going on then. What this whole Global warming thing will lead to is higher taxes and nothing done.

Answer 5

Global warming is very real and the biggest threat to the planet. The reason the science is missing is because we can't see temperatures beyond our visible spectrum in a world designed with temperature. Architects are the world's building designers and they design with regional temperatures so we don't impact the environment. The calculations determine energy use, mould, emissions, health etc and 100% of the design is done in a calculator. Universities, tech schools all use temperature considerations, except in a calculator. That made global warming and other problems an educated opinion or a political one.

Go to the source below as they have completed thousands of hours of research related to global warming, building performance, emissions and energy consumption, etc. Architects are missing critical data as are the rest of the professionals and the domino effect is catastrophic.

Our objectives as humans is to not generate heat atmospherically as everything is temperature sensitive. Go to the link below and see what is happening during heat waves in California, Texas or elsewhere. We are treating the heat symptoms with ozone depleting refrigerants, massive emissions, wasted electrical distribution, toxicity and no one is discussing the extreme heat we are generating.

Why do you protect your skin from UV? Go to the link below and see how UV and other solar radiation on buildings is generating as high as 198 degrees F on a 92 degree day. That is the UV impact on 1 building, imagine millions of them.

If you went home and pretended your environment is your globe, would 198 degree heaters inside your environment heat the globe? Sad to say this isn't rocket science, it is simply the evolution of temperature measurement out of the calculator. All of these problems end up in a doctor's office as an inflammatory response that they can't see...now they can. Light UV resistant exterior colors and creation provided shade, not refrigeration called "air conditioning"

Answer 6

Both.

There is NO doubt of what happens as the Earth warms and cools. The effects of natural global warming are well documented.

HOWEVER, the effects of releasing fossil fuel into the atmosphere is theory. This theory is based on CO2 levels in the air in previous 'peaks'. In the past, there has been a spike in the levels of CO2 before major climate changes. The theory is that if we continue pollute the air, mankind will cause an unnatural 'spike', and cause a global climate change.

I don't understand why people DENY that this is possible. Nature has a very delicate balance. Just a few inches of rain each year can make the difference between a desert and a forest. Why is it so hard to concieve that if 6 billion people continue to pollute the Earth, we will have some problems?

Answer 7

The globe is getting warmer that is a fact, the part that is at debate is if this is a natural course of the planet or if people's actions are the major cause.

Until this past year the government was warned with scientific facts that this was going to start to happen soon, but they hog washed it because the major suspected activity causing global warming was the burning of fossil fuels, which is what lines the pockets of politicians, therefore they have hidden the fact as long as they could.

Unfortunitly they hid it long enough that there is not much we can do to keep the worse from happening at this point we will face the devastatsion and extinction of many species as well as most humans but it will not happen furing our lifetime, or our childrens lifetime (for those of us over 30), but our grandchildren will be the first generation to face the consequnces of global warming.

There is (despite the idiots that posted before me) no doubt that we are contributing to the warming of the globe. Just think about this, if you light a candle inside a shoebox and put the lid on it, will the air in that box get warmer?

Of course it will. We are at an alarming rate converting solid matter into heat, just think the average car engine runs at 1200 degrees, the radiator (which is just like an old style heater for a house) keeps the engine at a cool 200+ degrees, where do you think the other 1000+ degrees goes?

remeber this scientific rule, matter can not be destroyed nor created, but it can be converted to energy and energy can be converted to matter.

Another PROVEN fact is that idiots like those who posted before me, in the 70's said acid rain didn't exist, it was a government plot to raise taxes.

In the 80's they said there is nothing wrong with the ozone layer..

In 2000 through 2006 President Bush and congress denied the existance of global warming, they as far as to fire and silence the very scientist they paid to investigate it when the scientists finding were, global warming is real and we are to blame.

Keep burning that fuel.......................

Answer 8

Global warming is a widely accepted theory.
Many factors cause the warming and counter warming. The results of a warming trend are indisputable. Glacial recession, melting of the poles, rising sea level, and extreme weather conditions are indicators of the warming.
The earth goes through long term warming and cooling trends. Catastrophic events may trigger a cycle, such as volcanism, and meteor collisions. Now it is believed that the sun has hot radiation cycles which cause the warming. Human activity may be dampening the current atmospheric warming by what is known as global dimming.

Answer 9

Global Warming is not a hypothesis. It has already become an established theory. That does not make it a law. Few scientific principles are laws. We don't call it the Law of Relativity but we know that it hold true in most cases, so it is called the Theory of Relativity. Scientists are very careful about how they label something. If they were still in the testing stage of Global Warming, it would still be called a hypothesis. The fact that it is called a thoery means it is quite a serious scientific understanding. Only when something has been proven to be true most of the time does it get to be called a theory. Theories are what most of science is based on. There are very few laws.

Answer 10

No, on all counts.

Specifically--as for the scientific method being compromised by politics. That has not happened--sespite the misinformation published by the oil companies and the Bush administration's censorship of scientific reports. The scientific community didn't back down.

Initially, global warming was a hypothesis--all scientific questions start out as hypotheses. However, the existance of global warming has been repeatedly confirmed and reconfirmed by a variety of different methods and tests/observations. So it is NOT a hypothesis, it is a provenfact.

But it is not a "law"--that term is reserved for basic principles that are always in effect, any wheere. For example, the statement "if you increase the amount of heat energy being added to a substance, then (barring some other change that will offset the added heat enrgy) the temperature of the substance will increase" would be a basic principle-a "law."

Global warming is an effect of certain causal factors--and those casues--and their effect--operate in accordance with basic principles. But global warming is an observed phenomenon that depends onthe continued presence of those causes--without the causes, global warming woulld stop--it isn't simply "there" the way a basic principle is.

In the case of the current global warming, the causes have been shown to be primarily rooted in human activity--our technology, deforestation--but mostly the emission of large quantities of CO2 from burning fossil fuels. That does not mean other instances of global warming cannot occur--indeed that has occured many times in Earth's past, but for different reasons.

TThe "skeptics" persist in advancing such natural causes as alternative explanations. I'll spare you the list. Suffice it to say that scientists did not simply assume global warming is caused by humans. The themselves advanced all of the "explanations" you keep seeing as hypotheses--and tested them (thoroughly). They found that observation and evidence (hypothesis testing) eliminated these natural explanations. Furthermore, extensive programs of obsrvation and testing have confirmed that the human-originated causes are the ones responsible for the current global warming.

Note also (and then I'l shut up!) that another problem regarding public discussion is the use of the "ad hominum" arguement regarding global warming--and it is used exclusively by the "skeptics." This is a logical fallacy--attacking the speaker/opponent rather than the evidence, hoping to win the arguement by discrediting the speaker. The usual target of this is Al Gore. However, Gore is not a scientist--and does not claim to be. He only reports what scientists have found/said--a public edcationeffort. Nor does he claim anything else. It is very easy to verify that he is an accurate reporter--he does provide sources adequate to do that. So--attacking Gore says nothing about the science, one way or the other--a purely "ad hominum" arguement and utterly invalid.