Marshmallow Marshalls Moralising Muscle

Have you perchance forgotten the laws of physics for instance? Like Newton’s laws of motion? Boyle’s Law? Plenty of others. Laws are proven theories. Theories remain unproven. Perhaps future science will disprove a law. We shall see.

Einstein had theories and some aspects have only just been observed and verified eg gravitational waves. He forecast that some of his theories could never be proved because they couldn’t be observed. They can probably be disproved.

Warmist climate scientists have such a wonderful theory that it cannot be disproved. That makes it unscientific. It can get colder or hotter, wetter or drier, seas can rise or fall, ice can grow or shrink, and all of this is apparently (in their climate-speak) consistent with their theory of anthropogenic induced climate change. It’s rubbish.

I have not. Laws are not proven theories, and they are equally falsiable with theories. They are a distinct formulation which describes relationships that pertain in a given set of circumstances, but do not pertain outside that set; and they do not attempt to attempt to explain what they describe.

Boyle’s Law of Ideal Gases is a perfect example. Ideal gases do not exist in nature; but the behavior of real gases is close enough that they can be approximated, with compensation factors as necessary, by Boyle’s Law. How closely they correspond depends on conditions.

Quoting wikipedia:

Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and may be found false when extrapolated. Ohm’s law only applies to linear networks, Newton’s law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli’s principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke’s law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc. These laws remain useful, but only under the conditions where they apply.

Many laws take mathematical forms, and thus can be stated as an equation; for example, the law of conservation of energy can be written as {\displaystyle \Delta E=0} \Delta E = 0, where E is the total amount of energy in the universe. Similarly, the first law of thermodynamics can be written as {\displaystyle \mathrm {d} U=\delta Q-\delta W,} \mathrm{d}U=\delta Q-\delta W,.

The term “scientific law” is traditionally associated with the natural sciences, though the social sciences also contain laws.[2] An example of a scientific law in social sciences is Zipf’s law.

Like theories and hypotheses, laws make predictions (specifically, they predict that new observations will conform to the law), and can be falsified if they are found in contradiction with new data.

1 Like

OK. Can we agree on this summary - also scrounged from the internet? Perhaps we are straying from the topic of this post.

Summary:

1.A law is an observation; a theory is the explanation of that observation.
2.A theory requires experimentation under various conditions. A law has no such requirements.
3.A theory may become obsolete with time. This is not the case with a law.
4.A theory can be replaced by another better theory; however, this never happens with a law.
5.A theory may be strong or weak according to the amount of evidence available. A law is a universally observable fact.

Read more: Difference between Theory and Law | Difference Between http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/culture-miscellaneous/difference-between-theory-and-law/#ixzz5D0qBN4Tg

1.A law is an observation; a theory is the explanation of that observation.

Partially agree. IMO it’s grossly simplistic and therefor a less useful description.

2.A theory requires experimentation under various conditions. A law has no such requirements.

Completely disagree. Do you think Boyle spent his time wanking?

3.A theory may become obsolete with time. This is not the case with a law.

Disagree. Laws are equally subject to falsification. However, since they treat of a more limited set of conditions I think that they have a much higher chance of being robust.

4.A theory can be replaced by another better theory; however, this never happens with a law.

Disagree.

5.A theory may be strong or weak according to the amount of evidence available. A law is a universally observable fact.

Agree with the first part, disagree with the second (again with the proviso that it’s easier to have a robust law than a robust theory).

Well, I don’t see myself as “set in my ways” to where I’m unable to accept new things, or to change my mind if somebody bring up new facts to prove my earlier thinking wrong.
In this case I see no such thing.

I AM too set in my ways to accept BS, hypocrisy and ideas based on ideology, propaganda,or political correctness. Ignorance may be excused though, if it is from lac of available facts and/or information etc. but not when caused by laziness to check the facts.

Why do I bother? Happy to discuss sinking Pacific islands pleading for money anyone?

Then we talk to talk about the land thats going up

Yes but do the seas raise faster than the corals can build the atolls, especially as corals die from warming water, bleaching from pollution and starfish attack?

No matter if the warming is wholly, partially or not at all from human activity, the fact remains that it is happening and especially so in the Arctic region.
With the diminishing ice cover on the seas this process speeds up due to less reflection.
Yes, I know that melting sea ice has little effect on sea levels, but the melting of glaciers does.

What does it matter to Marshall Islanders, (or Bengalis) if the reason for their land being inundated is natural or man made? Not much, except that if it is caused by humans something MAY be done about it.

Do you advocate that they should just shut up and wait until it is irrefutably proven to all sceptics to be caused by human activity? By than it will mos likely be too late.

How about we start here. I previously linked this.

I advocate they do what humans have done for millenia; adapt. There’s no way we can stop the seas rising or falling. Just live with it. Our ancestors did and so can we.

Climate change may just be one of Earth’s natural mechanisms to control population. When man interferes with the natural mechanisms of famine and disease to control the size of the human herd — by shipping massive quantities of food across the oceans and flooding the ecosystem with antibiotics—- it forces nature to resort to other means.

I see climate change as a natural, necessary, and inevitable mechanism. If man made greenhouse gas emission slightly accelerate or delay the coming of the next ice age, that’s ok. It’s just a little blip on the human evolutionary time scale.

If anyone wants to worry about something, a much more serious concern is the rapid spread of antibiotic resistant disease. We may be headed for another sudden mass wipeout of half the Earth’s population similar to the Black Death in the Middle Ages.

Instead of wasting $65 Billion on reducing ship emissions, we should be spending that money on developing new antibiotics.

It has been proven. The burden of proof lies with you as the one arguing against the established facts of science.

1 Like

Someone doesn’t understand what the word theory means.

No, you’re regurgitating the views of non climate scientists because you want what they say to be true.

How about this??:

Or this??:

I advocate that you do what humans haven’t done enough of in millenias passed; take heed from what nature and science tells you.

Doubtful.

I’ve read this whole thread and didn’t see you post anything of the sort.

1 Like

Electricity was a new invention, the automobile was a new invention, the diesel engine was a new invention. It is called scientific progress.

It’s actually not a theory because using air trapped in the ice in the glaciers and polar caps they can actual measure what the air composition was.

1 Like

Are you saying we know why the ice age came and went?

1 Like

So cite the proof.