In response to Newtster's comment:
In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:
In response to StalkingButler's comment:
I didn't realize that the scientific process has to run on a straight and undeviating line. Or that all theories have to be absolutely correct at the outset. It amazes me that some people want to disown science so adamantly only to suit a political agenda.
Here. For your convenience I'm posting a link to a definition of the "scientific method."
Here is the important bit with some notes by me:
I. The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena. (The world is getting warmer.)
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.(Maybe the cause of the warming are 'greenhouse gases.')
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.(the development of climate models.)
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.(collect data, compare against model predictions.)
If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.
(What has happened is that the predictions based on the theory have not borne out the hypothesis. Therefore, it must be rejected or modified. This is not politics, this is just the correct application of the scientific method.)
Since when does one data period out of dozens constitute a disproven theory?
If 90% of the data proves the theory and 5% doesn't with another 5% neutral then you don't assume the 5% to be the law of nature. You assume that the 90% points to the natural law. If the data overwhelmingly supports the theory but there is a small deviation in a small sample then it proves you are on the right track.
Not only is that the proper application of scientific theory, it's just plain common sense.
Anyone who glams onto the 5% and tries to use it as a rebuttal is an ideologue, not a scientist.
You are full of shiite.
5% of data that disproves a theory does just that.
How could the theory be correct if there is some data to show otherwise? Are you kidding me?
Oh 5 times out of 100 I dropped Ted Kennedy's body off the Tobin Bridge and it went up. 95 times it went down. So that proves that every time you drop it, it goes down and let's just ignore the 5% of the time it goes up? No, it would mean that there is something else going on that needs to be accounted for in the theory to account for reality.
You people who squawk about "deniers" and allthat politcal bs, are you now turning into deniers yourselves?
What a bunch of dooooshbags.
So is that what passes for civil discourse nowadays, insults.
It's obvious you have no experience in either the scientific process or working with data.
First of all, your analogy couldn't be more wrong.
The data doesn't show that temperatures are falling, it shows that they are neutral, as in they have no impact on the data either way.
If they were falling then it would be significant.
Your ignorance of science is belied by the fact that this is an observational theory which can't be tested on such a scale to mimic the Earth's atmosphere. So sorry to disappoint but your body throwing analogy is about as useful as a cup of spit at a forest fire.
I was being generous on the 5% of data being contradictory. In fact none of the data is contradictory, it is neutral at best.
Sorry, I should have taken into account the grade school level of intelligence on these boards as evidenced by your unfamiliarity with science and further borne out by the childish insults.
And by the way, weather and wind conditions as well as other factors could combine elevate a body briefly after it is thrown off a bridge.
I guess next you will have to start denying gravity.
Amazing how far the anti-science crowd will go in support of their political dogma.