Is Global Warming Objective or Subjective science? Objective science is where the data proves a theory right, it doesn%26#039;t matter the level of a persons education or their discipline. The data is repeatable, and can be calculated.

Is global warming subjective? If you%26#039;re not a climatologist your input doesn%26#039;t count, no one knows if it will be warmer or colder in the future. Isn%26#039;t global warming just an educated guess?
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report....
summarized at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report...
http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...

There are objective reasons why every major scientific organization agrees that global warming is real and mostly caused by us. Even hard (meaning precise, not difficult) sciences like Physics and Chemistry.

The National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Chemical Society, the American Meteorological Association, etc.

The NAS is not real big on subjectivity, either.

GW is not really even considered a true science but it does have interdisciplinary fields that come close to explaining it.If your just focused on climate only and long term predictions then by all means use that nomenclature.But it has limitations with respect to natural and environmental interactions.Some of these limitations can%26#039;t be accurately modeled and the outcome might not be apparent for another 10,000yrs or more.

Initially the science appeared to be subjective. There are warming trends but they seemed to individuals to be going at a faster rate than the Earth would normally warm.

The science has become objective. The data has now proven that the Earth is warming at a faster pace than ever previously recorded. The data is repeatable as comparing past warming trends and current warming trends shows an increase that does not compare to any natural occurrence on Earth.

I can tell you that in my own subjective view of the world that it is also common sense. If you drive around the United States and look at the volumes of smoke coming out of factories you can easily understand global warming. If you look at the growing volume of automobiles, even though today%26#039;s autos pollute less individually, the amount of pollution is significant.

You cannot possibly believe that all of this pollution created by humans can have no net effect on the planet. Look at the change that even the reduction of a species creates within a habitat. If the reduction of a species can cause great change, then replacing millions of acres of land with buildings and sending up polluted air from those buildings and automobiles has to be much worse.

Take care,
Troy

Reply to maris.roger: Your initial argument made some sense, but the end of your argument does not.

You are supporting Exxon Mobile, a multi-billion dollar company, in their effort to complete a research project with a clear goal of disproving global warming. Exxon Mobile does not force people to buy oil, but they have made a clear effort at fighting any effort to reduce the need for their oil production.

This company has fought every effort to hold them responsible for cleaning up their spills. This company has repeatedly lobbied for their interests in the government. You say that they do not force the purchaser%26#039;s hand, but they definitely use their billions to influence the government.

The oil interests are why it took the government so long to even admit that there might be such a thing as global warming. The oil companies are just now talking about renewable energy, something they would be providing now if they actually thought they could make money off of both oil and other sources.

The oil refineries are in short supply in the United States. Why? Because Exxon Mobile and other oil giants do not make as much money off refineries.

Did you know that if there were more refineries in the US gasoline prices would sharply decline? The oil companies have chosen not to build refineries. They then lobby the government to report that the oil companies are not overpricing consumers for gasoline.

Isn%26#039;t every theory just an educated guess? Of course, it has to have evidence and that evidence needs to be reviewed by peers. That has been done, and if you look at all of the scientific papers written about this topic, you will find that 95% or more agree that humans are part of the problem. Isn%26#039;t that enough for you? Let%26#039;s say it%26#039;s not true - wouldn%26#039;t you rather be cautious with the only Earth that we have?

Projective science. One group perceives the theory and projects it onto another group. This is also known as evangelical science.

Objective
but your definition there is very little of science that is truly Objective. most of the studies on global warming are peer reviewed meaning they are checked by others in the field for mistakes and fraud.
------------------
it depends on what you mean. if you are not a climatologist what could you have input in? NASA dose not let the average Joe tinker around with its space shuttles.
----------------
yes climate prediction is a educated guess. they can never tell you that at Y time it will be X degrees because the earth is a chaotic system. they give a range with probabilities and these predictions are very accurate.

I think the study of the trend is objective. The prediction of future trends and outcomes is the somewhat more esoteric part. It is definitely a developing science and not one that I think any hard conclusions can be arrived at.