This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
RosaMarie · 46-50, F
Let me start by saying that I agree with the spirit and intent of your post. We are on the same side. I'm a scientist by education and career.
Science really never uses the word 'fact'. Especially when describing the outcome of peer reviewed work. Data. Results. Hypothesis. Theory. Those are the words of science.
And yes, man made climate change has enough supporting data to move from a hypothesis to a theory. Much like the negative effects of smoking or drinking that you brought up in another comment.
By using 'fact' in your post you immediately sound unscientific and it hurts your point.
Science really never uses the word 'fact'. Especially when describing the outcome of peer reviewed work. Data. Results. Hypothesis. Theory. Those are the words of science.
And yes, man made climate change has enough supporting data to move from a hypothesis to a theory. Much like the negative effects of smoking or drinking that you brought up in another comment.
By using 'fact' in your post you immediately sound unscientific and it hurts your point.
@RosaMarie
What else can you possibly say? That there's still doubt??
Look around! It's happening! It's fact!
Or, if you prefer, the evidence is irrefutable.
By using 'fact' in your post you immediately sound unscientific and it hurts your point.
What else can you possibly say? That there's still doubt??
Look around! It's happening! It's fact!
Or, if you prefer, the evidence is irrefutable.