To tiger, A1 and others: I'm sorry if you feel upset about global warming. But it has stood the test of peer-review which to non scientists: peer-review is an international scientific standard. It means that when you want to publish scientific discoveries, you submit a paper to a scientific journal. The journal will then forward you paper to at least 2 experts in the field, ie your peers, for a critical review. To reduce bias, the review is double blind where you will not know who made the review of your article (maybe your article was turned down) and the reviewer will not now the authors of the paper until after the review, if the journal decides to publish your paper. The most well known peer-reviewed journals are Nature and Science. Journals and magazines with no peer-review, is not regarded as "scientific journals", since they have no external control of the quality of the works presented. I assume you are familiar with the National Academies of Science. NAS was created in 1863 by the US Congress, in order to provide advice to the goverment in scientific and techinal issues. NAS presently has about 2200 members, elected on merit in science. (Check their member list and you will recognise many famous names from many fields.) Thus, the NAS is an expert organ, and is reflecting mainstream (as opposed to highly unusual or highly controversial) science. Since NAS is the official scientific organ advicing the government, it has presented several official statements about science in general. NAS has recommended the US government to curb greenhouse gases because there is indeed global warming.
As for hypothesis generation (grant proposals) it's fundamental to all science. Science could not progress without speculation and belief that lead to testable hypothesis and money in required to do so. The central difference between scientific speculation and other speculations or believes, is that scientific speculation must make predictions that can be tested. Otherwise it's not defined as science.
A scientific theory must fulfil some criteria.
- it must have internal consistency
- it must be testable and falsifiable
- it must make testable predictions
- it must have a higher explanatory power that the currently dominant theory (ie it must explain at least those phenomena that the dominant theory is explaining)
I think it's scary people don't understand how science works. The building of a scientific theory is very different from building personal theories and ideas about things and we connot use scientific "laws", "theory" and "facts" interchangeably. . Science is a method for describing how the world works. It's a self revising process. If you're looking for everlasting truths, science can't help you. Static systems like religion are much better suited for that. Global warming is the current consensus in the scientific community. Again, don't take my word for this, check it out. If you can present a scientific theory that is equal to or better, than Global warming and I promise you I will abandon the current consensous the same minute and even start spreading the word.
Remember though, that a you thoery must fulfil the same criterion and withstand the same tests as any other scientific theory (as global warming has done so far). A scientific theory is not revised by statements of personal opinions or untestable speculation. The same rules apply as everywhere in science:
1. Disproving/falsifying global warmingis not enough. You have to present evidence that supports your own theory and make testable predictions from your theory.
2. References to studies or observations that support your theory may be taken from peer-reviewed scientific journals only. (Everybody knows Nature and Science, but there are many, many such journals. Lists of scientific journals are available on the net.)
