"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:
snip


**Nope. I accept that when all the planet's climatologists warn of a
problem that they are likely to be correct.


All ?

**Near enough. 97% is as close to consensus as it gets. If 97 doctors told
you that if you did not alter your diet, you would get a heart attack and
3 doctors told you not to alter your diet, because you'd be fine, what
would you do?




I really don't want to get drawn into this again, and I have no particular
desire to fall out with you - you've helped me out in the past with
schematics, and for that I am grateful. But I am really struggling with all
of this. For a start, 97% is up from the 95% that you reckoned it was
earlier in the thread. You make a case for what a doctor might say, but
let's turn that around. If one of your children, say, was up for murder, but
there was a 5% chance that they didn't do it, would you consider that to be
a proven case ? I certainly wouldn't.

Let me throw this into the equation :

http://www.mlive.com/opinion/flint/i...global_wa.html

which tells the story of 650 scientists that apparently spoke out against
the case. Now I'm sure that there is some reason that it is all lies, or
should be discredited, but the same story did appear in many other places,
so I have to give it some credibility. 650 seems like quite a big number to
me.





**********. Unlike you, I've been examining the subject of AGW since
the mid
1970s. The only thing that has altered is the amount of data that
supports the theory.



Theory ?

** http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory



OK. Let's reproduce it here, to save everyone having to go look at your link

"1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as
correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a
class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle,
law, doctrine. "

Yes, I am aware of this variation of the definition of the word, when used
specifically in connection to science. However, you will note that it
doesn't actually say 'proven', only 'commonly regarded' and that can be used
as 'a principle of explanation'. The fact that Einstein's theory of
relativity is cited as an example is interesting, in that it has gone so
long without actually being proved, that it has become scientific doctrine -
dogma even. And yet just last week, it was announced to the world that it
was likely that a particle which travelled faster than light, had been
clearly detected. Professor Brian Cox, a scientist that I have a deal of
respect for in his primary field of quantum physics, and who was involved in
the experiments to locate this particle, said that if it was correct, it
would turn quantum physics knowledge on its head, and blow Mr Einstein out
of the water. Who would ever have thought that ? Do you consider the theory
of evolution to be a proven case ? A good many reputable scientists and
commentators don't ...

Strangely, having given the definition in the slightly vague terms that they
have, your dictionary then goes on at the end to use the words 'principle',
'law' and 'doctrine' as synonyms, which they clearly aren't as they are much
more closely defined words.

So as far as I am concerned, my query as to your use of the word 'theory',
has not been altered at all. The general understanding of a theory, is that
it is one stage up from hypothesis, in that it is an idea or set of ideas,
whose validity is supported by known facts, the key word being 'supported'
not 'proven'

Arfa

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au