Why the IPCC is Right

Comments 1 - 6 of 6 previous next Post a comment

• + dan satterfield 3 months ago

  You are confusing Theory with Hypothesis.
  Except the conspiracy theory nuts (Moon landing hoaxers, Obamas not a citizen, Govt. is run by secret ideologues, etc) Those are just conspiracy beliefs based on flimsy or non existent evidence. A far cry from real science.

• + Pieter Prinsloo 3 months ago

  Where on earth do you come from? I almost did not bother to even reply but now I can tell why the whole debate on man causing climate change is raging - it’s because of pseudo-scientists! To even write such drivel as trying to explain that the law of gravity is a good example of how ’theories outrank laws’! I hope that you’ve been corrected in the meantime ?! In case you haven’t and for your information, Newton’s FIRST theorized about why the apple falls to the ground and from there, after his theory was accepted as being correct by his peers (because the theory could not be disproved – as they sometimes are!), the LAW OF GRAVITY was derived! The LAW OF UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION i.e. F =G (m1m2/r^2) - was derived FROM the theories that PRECEDED it and now the LAW exists AND until somebody can disprove (or improve) this LAW OF PHYSICS, it will stand! Theories on the other hand are... well, just theories, like the whole global warming issue! What you are probably confusing the word ‘theory’ with is the word ‘theorem’, but not even ‘theorem’ ‘outranks’ a scientific law! (and a ‘Theorem’ is definitely not a ‘theory’ ; a Theorem is an accepted statement bases upon previously accepted statements and is mostly used in Mathematics – use your online dictionaries if you’re still confused!)
  If you were a true scientist you would have known that in a peer group of scientists the ‘theory’ comes first to TRY and explain particular phenomena! THEN, once the ‘theory / theories’ have been discussed amongst a peer group of scientists (with the relevant experience and background on the particular subject) a LAW will be postulated and normally first sent for review amongst the peer group before being published as a new law.
  AS FAR AS GLOBAL WARMING IS CONCERNED! - GO LOOK AT THE FACTS! (Something a real scientist does!) Look at the statistics from the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Centre at http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ - look at the ’Global Sea Ice Area’ and you will notice that the global sea ice anomaly has returned to 1979 levels for both 2008 and so far for 2009!
  Mr. Al Gore and the IPCC’s ‘scientists’ claim that the Antarctic ice is shrinking every year! Look at the facts! On the same web site you will find that in FACT the Antarctic Ice (Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice consist almost exclusively of Antarctic Ice!) anomaly has decreased significantly (in other words the sea ice has increased!), showing a definite negative (‘smaller’ anomaly) trend during 2008 / 2008. Even the Northern Hemisphere, where the Northern Ice cap showed severe regression at the end of 2007, the figures (facts, as measured by the scientists from the University of Illinois) show that the regression has halted and in fact, if you extrapolate the trend line for 2008 / 2009, you will see an increase in sea ice to the same levels of km^2 of Global Sea Ice as 30 years (1979) ago!

• + sts3 4 months ago

  I’m sure people who have bought into the whole theory of Global Warming would say that politial opinion sites contain a bunch of conspiracy theories. These ’conspiracy theories’ can be proven to be wrong... (Slide 17) Why is it that we should base our whole society around theories that a group of scientists have come up with, which can also be proven to be wrong? When comparing two theories, why not apply the same rules? Dictionary.com says that a scientist is 'an expert in science, esp. one of the physical or natural sciences.'. I would argue that there are also experts in the political realm who could add some insight into what some politicians will do to increase tax revenues and control over people’s lives. BTW, it’s a lot easier to conspire when a certain ideology has control of all branches of our federal government.

• + guestd55080 7 months ago

  If theories explain the laws, What laws are the theories about global warming seeking to explain?

• + dan satterfield 7 months ago

  Scientific laws only describe an event that we see over and over. Theories explain the laws. The law of gravity is a good example. We alway see objects fall to the Earth. Theory explains why, and why it will not fall back if an object reaches escape velocity.

• + guestd55080 7 months ago

  Will someone please explain why scientific theories outrank laws? (Slide 17) It seems that a scientific law would be more rooted in reality as it is an observation, whereas scientific theories would be more theoretical and merely unable to be proven wrong.

Post a comment

Embed Video Email:
Subscribe to follow-up comments Unsubscribe from followup comments