Good Scientific Theory is Disprovable

Along with the scientific process of observe, hypothesize, experiment and draw conclusions, two things are implicit in making something scientific:

1. It’s disprovable
2. It’s predictive

Being willing give up long established beliefs is difficult for many.  I remember being younger and arguing yet realizing I was wrong.  The mark of a mature person is a willingness to change one's mind after proper evidence. So, is your belief that global warming is man-made disprovable? Or the contrary, is your belief that global warming isn't man-made disprovable? What would it take for someone to convince you you're wrong on the subject? 

If nothing would – it’s a religion for you so there’s no point in having a scientific discussion

There are several good articles about religion versus science.  One by Walter Williams ends with this:

Political commentator Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956) warned that "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and hence clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

Society, and particularly politics relies on a crisis.  Several politicians have said, "Never let a good crisis go to waste."  It's harder during a crisis to think critically and scientifically--especially being willing to admit that the course one is on may be the wrong direction.

As mentioned in my first post about why I started this blog,  "in the 70's, I vividly recall every nature show I ever watched ended with the obligatory comment that man was the greatest threat to nature.  I read the same message in my Weekly Reader in grade school. that we were overpopulating the earth, and that our pollution was destroying the climate and going to cause...the next ice age."

In the 90's things dramatically changed and the fear became the opposite:  global warming.  About the same time I read the well footnoted book, Trashing the Planet, by oceanographer Dixie Lee Ray and learned a great many other things I heard as a child may not be true.

The scientific process thrives on the assumption that we keep the old theory until a better one comes along and then adopt that.  We cannot be scientific if we ignore or offhandedly dismiss those points against our own.  One of the most difficult things researching these articles is finding differing opinions and deciding how much of the debate to include in a short article.  Good debate should acknowledge the opposing view, not creating a "straw man" to tear down, but to honestly deal with what we disagree with and win over the observer with the high quality of our own arguments.

This rarely happens with controversial issues.  We used to get 15 minutes of news , punctuated by commercials, but now we seem to be looking for easy sound bites that capture our point of view and exclude the others.

It has been said by many that those who don't believe in global warming are "science deniers" (a clear reference to "holocaust deniers").  A more accurate claim would be that not being willing to listen and seriously entertain an opposing view is denying science.

Real science is disprovable.