Is Global Warming a Hoax?

[Savy]

Maths isn't theory though.

It's literally nothing but theory.

[OngBonga]

It's literally nothing but theory.

Alright well then we're defining "theory" differently. I don't even care who's technically right, there's a distinct difference between the "theory" of mathematics, and the "theory" of string theory, to throw an example out there. Mathematics is incontrovertible fact, to steal mojo's phrase.

Climate change is incontrovertible fact.

Again, we're just being technical about language here. I'm obviously not talking about ice ages and stuff, and neither is anyone else.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Again, we're just being technical about language here. I'm obviously not talking about ice ages and stuff, and neither is anyone else.

This whole thread has been an excellent example that once we nail the technical language, the actual state of affairs on these topics is much easier to parse.

Further:
In science, semantics makes all the difference in the world. The findings (statements of prediction) shown by scientific process are, by design, specific statements.

E.g. If you say, "the wheel spins because a force pulled on its edge," then I probably know what you mean, but that statement is false.
Forces do not cause motions, forces cause accelerations. Additionally, forces cause linear accelerations; torques cause angular accelerations. The sentence clearly means angular motion in using the word "spins." So it's false on 2 accounts.
Again, I probably know what you meant, but I'm guessing. If we're facing misunderstanding between us, then you can't rightly claim to have clearly stated your thoughts.