97% of scientists believe climate change is caused by humans, study finds

[Chrysia]

For the record, a few months ago Endus would argue we don't have a "theory of gravity". Which is hilarious considering the context of this detour.

We don't have a comprehensive theory of universal gravitation. We have several gravitational laws which are applicable at various levels, but there isn't one unifying theory that consolidates all of them, though we keep getting closer.

[Endus]

For the record, a few months ago Endus would argue we don't have a "theory of gravity". Which is hilarious considering the context of this detour.

Gravity's a bit of an odd duck. There's no identified means by which it is exerted, so we presume (without having actually proven it to be the case) that it's an inherent effect on spacetime, by mass. There's some theorization that it's propagated by as-yet unidentified particles, gravitons, but as I said, never been detected, nor any energy that could account for it.

Which actually means gravitational theory is less understood than climate theory. Where we DO understand all that. Which is sort of the central point, here; climate science is very well understood and our models are strongly predictive, despite it being a wicked problem compared to simple gravitation.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Google search with quotations: 1 hit
might have better luck without the "global" bit.

The amount of people on the field referring to the collection of models and assorted data that CC is as a theory is so insignificant, I don't think this requires any response at all.
But you're so wrapped up on that nonsense, that you fail to understand the contention *and* the scope of definitions. The contention because I'm giving it sufficient room with the assessment that it doesn't fit in any traditional sense. And your definition, because it's not definitive: it's a set of necessary characteristics but not a necesarily suffficient set.
What is and what is not a scientific theory is and always will be set by what the philosophy of science folks (which many scientists are), deem it to be. And they don't do so on this case. You're not even involved in producing either the science behind it, or the epistemic themes. You are almost alone on this one.

Ultimately you are incapable of posing an argument of this kind that doesn't reduce to semantics, so spare me. When the vast majority of people in the field don't use the label, your semantic contention is moot: it's not supported by the very people that could be supporting it.
Of course, this is paralleled in your absurd crusade to not apply the label theory to both theories of relativity. Which is both hilarious and sad. Because you are pretending to be the arbiter, dictionary in hand, in a field you have 0 weight, and against the very people who actually produce the science and the philosophy.
If, and when, you are capable of transmitting this noble idea of yours within the framework of epistemology, come back to me.


I'm not disputing its rigor. I'm stating that it doesn't nor does it need to attain the rigor, the exactness, the precision, the accuracy that is expected in other fields, such as physics.

PS: germ theory is not a thing. Germ theory of disease is: a theory about disease (not about germs) that posits microorganisms, germs, to be the culprit as opposed to miasmas or "pollution".

This post is just filled with so much wrong, it would take days to fully explain the amount of garbage in this complete misunderstanding of the hard practice of science.

[Omega Sanctions]

Gravity's a bit of an odd duck. There's no identified means by which it is exerted, so we presume (without having actually proven it to be the case) that it's an inherent effect on spacetime, by mass.

Which is why it's called a scientific theory instead of a law. Again: What you think of the word "theory" is not what an actual theory is. And no matter how much you want to believe it isn't real doesn't change the fact that it pretty much is.

[Chrysia]

Which is why it's called a scientific theory instead of a law. Again: What you think of the word "theory" is not what an actual theory is. And no matter how much you want to believe it isn't real doesn't change the fact that it pretty much is.

No. No no no no no. Science doesn't have laws. Math does. Science uses mathematical laws to build theories.

[nextormento]

We don't have a comprehensive theory of universal gravitation. We have several gravitational laws which are applicable at various levels, but there isn't one unifying theory that consolidates all of them, though we keep getting closer.

What else are you thinking other than GR?.
If we accepted the comprehensive at every level argument, or lack thereof, climate change has a much rougher time passing as a theory. Because we're yet to unify the climate in, say, Jupiter with its very different atmospheric pressure regime among others.
But that's not his contention anyway. It's that we hadn't detected force carriers.

- - - Updated - - -

Gravity's a bit of an odd duck. There's no identified means by which it is exerted

Every theory is an odd duck.
GR does predict the carrier, that we've actually detected already (gravitational waves).

[Chrysia]

What else are you thinking other than GR?.
If we accepted the comprehensive at every level argument, or lack thereof, climate change has a much rougher time passing as a theory. Because we're yet to unify the climate in, say, Jupiter with its very different atmospheric pressure regime among others.
But that's not his contention anyway. It's that we hadn't detected force carriers.

- - - Updated - - -


Every theory is an odd duck.
GR does predict the carrier, that we've actually detected already (gravitational waves).

We detected gravitational waves literally within the last few weeks, and even then gravitational waves don't explain the gravitational phenomena at or near the event horizon of a black hole, for example.

[Cthulhu 2020]

You keep pretending like there's a normative body out there deciding what a theory is, and there isn't.

There's enough of an informal consensus on climate change. Although that's all a consensus ever is. The IPCC is the closest thing to a "formal" consensus on a scientific matter.

- - - Updated - - -

What else are you thinking other than GR?.
If we accepted the comprehensive at every level argument, or lack thereof, climate change has a much rougher time passing as a theory. Because we're yet to unify the climate in, say, Jupiter with its very different atmospheric pressure regime among others.
But that's not his contention anyway. It's that we hadn't detected force carriers.

We pretty thoroughly know our own atmosphere, which is really all we need. There's literally thousands of models at this point, and a very thorough understanding of is drivers. The climate of Jupiter has about as much to do with our climate as someone taking a shit in China has to do with US politics.

[nextormento]

There's enough of an informal consensus on climate change. Although that's all a consensus ever is. The IPCC is the closest thing to a "formal" consensus on a scientific matter.

You are not following along the exchange. As usual.
I work on climate change policy, for crying aloud. I know and understand what consensus there is, and I read and apply the literature periodically.
This contention is a semantic detour about the standing of anthropocentric global climate change as a scientific theory.

[Garnier Fructis]

Every theory is an odd duck.
GR does predict the carrier, that we've actually detected already (gravitational waves).

Gravitational waves are not the force carrier, they're an effect. GR itself doesn't actually postulate or even require a force carrier because from the point of view of GR, gravitation is not a real force in the sense of the strong, weak or EM forces. It's considered a frame force, like if you're on a merry-go-round and start tossing balls straight in front of you, they'll curve to the left (or right). That curving motion isn't caused by a real force; it's caused by the rotation of your own reference frame.

In GR, gravitation is simply the motion of your reference frame along 'curved' paths, and that curvature is related to energy (mostly mass, but even electromagnetic energy generates some gravity). The carrier, the graviton, is a quantum mechanics postulate because we're pretty convinced that there's a better, more complete description of gravity that's quantum, and that GR is simply a classical approximation akin to Newton's laws.

Just some fun facts for people.

[Feel The Power]

So they "believe" it?

I wonder how many scientists back in the day believed the earth was flat.

Back in the day, as in basically thousands of years ago. Belief in a round Earth has been a very common, very old concept, regardless of what you heard about what people in Columbus's day supposedly believed. But even back in the day when people believed the Earth was flat...so what? I don't see how this is some kind of point to what the OP is talking about. Scientists not knowing everything, especially a couple thousand years ago...quite a revelation there.

[nextormento]

We detected gravitational waves literally within the last few weeks, and even then gravitational waves don't explain the gravitational phenomena at or near the event horizon of a black hole, for example.

Oh, of course. We're working on two different contentions here. GR is not complete, which is yours. And we haven't identified a the carrier which is Endus'

Within GR a black hole is an incredibly simple mathematical object, though. It can explain everything that it internally models a black hole to be. We simply know more phenomena that should occur, that GR doesn't begin to explore. But that's pretty far off my field, so I don't feel very confident on any of it.

[Cthulhu 2020]

You are not following along the exchange. As usual.
I work on climate change policy, for crying aloud. I know and understand what consensus there is, and I read and apply the literature periodically.
This contention is a semantic detour about the standing of anthropocentric global climate change as a scientific theory.

Could have fooled me, considering I work closely with it.

[CptEgo]

So they "believe" it?

I wonder how many scientists back in the day believed the earth was flat.

It's insane to me that some people still wont believe that we are the major cause of climate change. How can you possibly think that all the shit we put into the air and the atmosphere has had no effect at all? Even when literally everyone is telling you that it's a fact, you still don't believe it. That's crazy man.

[Wells]

I work on climate change policy, for crying aloud.

I mean....so does Lamar Smith, sooooooo

[Garnier Fructis]

It's insane to me that some people still wont believe that we are the major cause of climate change. How can you possibly think that all the shit we put into the air and the atmosphere has had no effect at all? Even when literally everyone is telling you that it's a fact, you still don't believe it. That's crazy man.

Part of it is because it's often phrased very poorly, as in your post here. We're not the major cause of climate change. Climate change has a host of natural and man-made causes. Are we the major cause of the current warming trend? Yes. Are we the cause of climate change, in general? No.

It's a distinction that matters, because it's right on the line between reasonable and ridiculous.

[Endus]

Part of it is because it's often phrased very poorly, as in your post here. We're not the major cause of climate change. Climate change has a host of natural and man-made causes. Are we the major cause of the current warming trend? Yes. Are we the cause of climate change, in general? No.

It's a distinction that matters, because it's right on the line between reasonable and ridiculous.

When we use the term "climate change" in reference to the current trend, then yes, humanity is the cause. Does that mean we're saying that humanity is the only factor that has ever contributed to climate change at any prior point in the Earth's history? No. We're talking about the current shift.

You're basically attacking a straw man. Nobody has argued that humans are the only force that ever could affect the climate. Just that the current shift we're seeing is anthropogenic.

[Garnier Fructis]

When we use the term "climate change" in reference to the current trend, then yes, humanity is the cause. Does that mean we're saying that humanity is the only factor that has ever contributed to climate change at any prior point in the Earth's history? No. We're talking about the current shift.

You're basically attacking a straw man. Nobody has argued that humans are the only force that ever could affect the climate. Just that the current shift we're seeing is anthropogenic.

The problem is that this is a strawman that people make subconsciously most of the time. I convinced a family member that it was true after years, and then I found out that he just implicitly assumed this strawman basically the whole time.

[nextormento]

Gravitational waves are not the force carrier, they're an effect.
In GR, gravitation is simply the motion of your reference frame along 'curved' paths, and that curvature is related to energy (mostly mass, but even electromagnetic energy generates some gravity). The carrier, the graviton, is a quantum mechanics postulate because we're pretty convinced that there's a better, more complete description of gravity that's quantum, and that GR is simply a classical approximation akin to Newton's laws.

Oh, right; falling along the geodesics.
I get the impression that the existence of the imagined graviton would also require the manifestation of waves. As in: it is consistent with a carrier, but it's not evidence for it? right.
Thanks for the correction anyway.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I mean....so does Lamar Smith, sooooooo

Wells, we have to know the specifics of Jupiter's climate before we can comment on Earth's Climate, otherwise we won't have a proper understanding!