Quote:
Hunpecked said:
Of course, since AGW is a hypothesis (as Will apparently realizes), this whole philosophy of science discussion is just an interesting sidebar to the discussion of AGW. 
|
Ahhh, cross posting... bleh.
Anyway, there are multiple concepts flying around here, but AGW is a hypothesis, yes, and one that has not been falsified yet (and it will be a hard one to falsify; in logic notation it is ∃x(AGW) and to falsify it, you must show that ∀x(~AGW), where x is some set of conditions, ∃ is the "there exists symbol, ∀ is the "for all" symbol, ~ is the not operator, and AGW is, of course, our hypothesis). The theory or model that we have been talking about is our understanding of how various factors influence temperature throughout the world, including the affects of solar output, surface and atmospheric albedo, greenhouse effects, ocean and atmospheric currents, geothermals, and countless other factors and their interactions. THIS is the theory that must be replaced by a better one, and the AGW hypothesis is an element of this theory. Current opinion says there is not an alternative theory that leaves out the AGW hypothesis that explains the data as well as the current theory with the AGW hypothesis.
--edit: logical symbols fixed? maybe? nope... in your minds, please replace ∀ with an upside-down capital A, and ∃ with a backwards capital E...