I know there has been some discussion recently on how to handle global warming threads, and I did do a search but couldn't really find what I was looking for. Some of the threads on the subject are huge.
An argument against AGW that I've been encountering a good deal lately is that since scientists and organizations that study climate change have made predictions that were wrong in the past, that this somehow disproves AGW. Specifically, since the warming hasn't increased as much as previously predicted this means that any further attempts by the science community to investigate why the predictions didn't happen as previously thought, are nothing more than excuses to bolster a failed theory. In one online discussion one person listed such "excuses", which included low solar activity, aerosols, stratospheric water vapor, wind, and others.
So the question is when does it become just making excuses for a failed theory?
An argument against AGW that I've been encountering a good deal lately is that since scientists and organizations that study climate change have made predictions that were wrong in the past, that this somehow disproves AGW. Specifically, since the warming hasn't increased as much as previously predicted this means that any further attempts by the science community to investigate why the predictions didn't happen as previously thought, are nothing more than excuses to bolster a failed theory. In one online discussion one person listed such "excuses", which included low solar activity, aerosols, stratospheric water vapor, wind, and others.
So the question is when does it become just making excuses for a failed theory?
via JREF Forum http://ift.tt/1fD86T7
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire