Even Scientists Don’t Agree

Anywhere that theory goes, disagreement is bound to
follow. Any set of facts can be interpreted
differently, as the theories of global warning prove.

According to Merriam Webster Dictionary, two of the
definitions of the word theory include: the analysis
of a set of facts in their relation to one another;
and a plausible or scientifically acceptable general
principle or body of principles offered to explain
phenomena.

There are many “facts” about the earth’s atmospheric
changes; many scientists believe we are experiencing
the start of a warming cycle that could change the
climate so dramatically that humankind would cease to
exist.

Other scientists, using the same data, draw vastly
different theories: the atmosphere is experiencing a
harmless blip in its natural and normal cycle and that
humans only minimally affect the amount of CO2 in the
atmosphere.

There is vast evidence on both sides of the argument,
and there seems to be very little middle ground. Al
Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” and Spencer R. Whert’s
“The Discovery of Global Warming” came to the
forefront in warning us about global warming; Fred
Singer, former Chief Scientist with the US Weather
Program and Professor Wilfred Beckerman, former member
of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution are
just a few of the scientist who view the data from the
opposite angle.

There are innumerable articles, papers and books that
support both sides of the global warning issue. The
only common ground in these opposing camps seems to be
that the data fails to back enough years to be
absolutely indisputable, and that, as good as they
are, computers cannot model nature.