[QUOTE=Thorne;835822]
Quote Originally Posted by DuncanONeil View Post
Do you even understand what a "theory" is? A theory is not proven. Were that the case it would not be a theory!


Actually, in scientific terms, a theory is an hypothesis which has been shown, through testing and repeatability, to be consistent with observed reality. In other words, it's as close to 'fact' as you can get. The theory of relativity has been shown, through observation and experimentation, to be consistent with reality. The theory of gravity has been shown repeatedly to conform to observed phenomena. In science you don't get much better than a theory.
I've often been struck by the similarities of style between AGW deniers and creationists, but I never expected to see this particular creationist specialty repeated here - "You call it a theory, that means it's not proved, ha ha!"

It is a depressing thought that the most highly educated culture in history, with more universities and more people in study than ever before, might walk cheerfully off a cliff because a majority of its citizens don't know or don't care about the basic principles of scientific method.
I'm not sure that AGW would even qualify as a valid theory, since there seems to be so much scientific controversy over it. At best it may be classified an hypothesis, but I doubt that it has reached the validity of a theory.
The comparison above is apt, because there is as much controversy about it as there is about evolution. Which is to say that the theory of the basic mechanism long ago passed enough empirical tests to satisfy the majority of specialists, but there remains a very large area of argument about exactly how and where that mechanism is being expressed, and there also remains a small group who, for ideological reasons or simple conservatism, can't accept the proofs that convince the rest: and by dishonestly conflating these two groups, it is possible to create the impression for outsiders that scientific opinion is divided.

The UEA's work is a case in point. What they were working on was not the basic principle of climate change, which they and all their peers take as long proved, but the detailed questions of exactly how and where and how fast the changes will happen: so even if every word of their reports were proved to be false, it would only change the details of policy. But the deniers constantly spin it as though the basic theory were being disproved, in the same way that creationists point to the faking of Piltdown Man as if it disproved the entire theory of human evolution.