- Joined
- Mar 5, 2018
- Messages
- 8,009
- Reaction score
- 1,428
- Location
- Seattle, WA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
No, AGW is not a theory because it is a void argument. You must first define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions to even begin to have any theories about it. A theory about a buzzword forms a void argument.AGW is not a theory because of scientific consensus.
No theory is ever proven, not even a theory of science. Science has no proofs. A theory of science remains a theory until it is destroyed by falsification.There is scientific consensus because it is a proven theory.
No, it is a theory because it is an explanatory argument. That is what a theory is. It just isn't scientific theory. It is not falsifiable.It's just like other theories. Take evolution for example. There is a consensus among scientists that the theory of evolution is fact. It's not a theory because there is consensus, but the other way around.
Define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions, then you can talk about theories of AGW. Until you do, you are just using buzzwords.The same sorts who make a vain attempt to dispute AGW
The Theory of Evolution is not dependent on data.by cherry picking data are the ones who attempt to dispute the theory of evolution,
Some of it's believers do also believe in the Theory of Creation. The Theory of Evolution is not incompatible with the Theory of Creation or the Theory of Abiogenesis.and for basically the same reason: It does not fit with their world view.
However, because all three of these theories are not falsifiable, none of them are theories of science. All three are actually religions (or parts of an overall religion).