Owls example makes sense in this debate. When a theory can become predictive, it is no longer a guess. We are far from that point with climate

If the point is academic, then sure... We can accept that an unproven or not-disproven theory makes sense... But when we are being asked to spend untold sums of money for unquantified benefit to avoid unproven guesses, the burden of proof is much higher

Note that studies showing the impact of a 5 degree increase in average global temperatures is not evidence of the fact that a) it will happen or b) that if it does that we can stop it

tHAT is what needs to be studied

(05-30-2012 03:13 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  A. Give me one theorem that's proven.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorem

Quote:In mathematics, a theorem is a statement that has been proven...
Indeed, theorems are true precisely in the sense that they possess proofs. Therefore, to establish a mathematical statement as a theorem, the existence of a line of reasoning from axioms in the system (and other, already established theorems) to the given statement must be demonstrated.

Quote:B. Give me a scientific theory that has been disproven in the last two centuries.
...
Once a theory is disproven it is modified or is no longer considered a theory.

So doesn't that mean you accept that theories can be disproved?