Zoologist wrote an excellent article on why the phrase "just a theory" irritates scientists (https://forums.joeuser.com/?forumid=11&aid=165215#1333538). While it is not my intention to ridicule his point, there is another side, one I felt should be expressed. The following is my rebuttal to his argument:
Well said; however, it must be stated that a theory is ALWAYS open for debate or discussion. A theory differs substantially from a law in this regard. One of the problems with global warming is that the other side is not invited to the debate, and in fact, has been shouted down, labelled by at least one prominent American (RFK, Jr.) as being traitors for merely questioning the issue.
Most of the "opposition" has been stating their case poorly as regards global warming. The questions many of us have do not revolve around whether or not global warming is happening (it's hard to dispute, really), but how much of an impact we are having as a species, and how much of an impact "corrective" action is likely to have.
The fact is, many GW alarmists ignore the evidence we have that Venus and Mars are getting warmer at the same rate as the Earth, yet without the presence of human activity. There is evidence the sun itself is growing warmer, evidence that would seem to be consistent with what is actually known about our nearest star.
You tell us to lend more credence to theories, but you are seemingly oblivious to the fact that much of the scientific community selectively ignores some theories in favor of other theories. If scientists showed as much respect for competing theories as you are admonishing us non-scientists to show for THEIR theories, perhaps we would be more accepting.
A good example of why I don't take anything at face value, zoologist: in the 1970's, I was in grade school. We were taught the world's oil supply would last only 20-30 years. In the 1980's, my brothers and sisters went through grade school. They were taught the world's oil supply would last only 20-30 years. In the 1990's, my sister-in-law went through grade school. At the risk of being repetitious, I will state that she was taught the world's oil supply would last only 20-30 years. What are today's children being taught? Yup, you guessed it! Now, all of these projections were based on scientifically tested theories; theories that failed to take into account many other variables. It is not irrational to assume that GW science is equally flawed.
It is truly frightening to me when I look back on the history of science, and realize that more than 2000 years ago, scientists thought they had reached the pinnacle of knowledge, and that the intervening years have brought no measure of humility to the field. It is not unreasonable to speculate that scientists 500 years hence could consider our scientists as unlearned as we now consider the scientific community in Galileo's day.
Yes, the word "theory" is used too casually, but remember, "just a theory" is a reminder of the fallibility of man.