For a scientist you don't seem to understand the scientific method.
Not to toot my own horn too loudly, the review panels of the Journal of the American Chemical Society (JACS) and Tetrahedron Letters might disagree with you quite a bit... they seem to like what I've researched and written on organic superconductor materials.
I have lived the scientific method for 40 plus years thank you... I understand clearly what it is (but more importantly, what it is not
).
Per a general definition from Wikipedia,
Theory is a group of ideas meant to explain a certain topic of science, such as a single or collection of fact(s), event(s), or phenomen(a)(on). Typically, a theory is developed through the use of contemplative and rational forms of abstract and generalized thinking.I bolded the word "or" in the definition not to disagree or correct with you.... rather, to point out that "theory" can also be called "group of ideas" and "a collection of events or phenomena." This is important because many global warming
theories are indeed that: theories based on a group of ideas as a collection of events/phenomena.
In my line of scientific critical thinking, the err of your use of the word "theory" occurred when you Googled up and read the global warming theory you choose to believe and assert that these are definitively now "facts." That may or may not be true but we can leave it to the current American media to purport that the theories are indeed fact.
A theory (in the scientific sense we are speaking of) is a valid explanation of fact and measurement. The theory is not supported simply by "some" data, but all of it. A scientific theory is falsifiable, however if it is a theory (and global warming is indeed a valid scientific theory), it has yet to have any evidence that proves it false, or that disagrees with it. Surely you would wish to correct yourself if you claim to be a scientist...
It would seem to me you missed my point.
For your argument, you seem to agree with the data collected in the last couple hundred years. That's fine.... but it is indeed limited data for a VERY short period of time of the theorized 4.5 billion year old age of planet earth. Again, you choose to believe those scientific opinions and data that support your belief based on events, phenomena, and
some data for an incredibly short period of the earth's life cycle. I do not. Pretty simple really. Much like seasonal variation, rising and lower sea levels, etc., I choose to believe that the minute temperature fluctuation of the planet is merely a short time period of normal global temperature variance that will be offset in net effect by global cooling in the years ahead (that most likely will occur beyond my lifetime; much like it most probably did in the previous 4,499,999,746 years predating Industrial Revolution).
If you have any evidence that shows the planet was not warming over the past 200 years I (along with many others) would love to see it. Global warming is indeed a proven theory, supported by factual data (over the 200 year time period originally mentioned). Again, if you have any evidence or data to the contrary I, and many others would love to see it. I have provided mine. In this case I choose to believe the data, and the theory that is supported by the data. It's that simple. Neal
You seem to be quite adept with Google so I am surprised to see that you cannot find theories or data that do not support your belief in the theory of global warming. There is a rather large consortium of highly respected, scientists (400+ if memory serves me) that clearly disagree with the theory in general but not surprisingly, the media doesn't seem too interested in reporting on it objectively. As you can see, scientific methodology is anything but infallible as scientists on both sides of the global warming topic exists.... the non-believers seem to be mutually excluded in large part. I'll dig up some nice information for you in the future though (a bit busy right now putting in my Indiana-warming OWB... ;-) ). -Scott