I believe the anthropogenic global warming is a fact, and that the scientific community has reached a consensus about it, but may we call it a (proved) scientific theory? This question was also done and answered here: https://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110609015425AAwoFWL But I want more answers, preferably with reliable sources.

  • This question is rather unclear, and I worry it has been misclassified as a duplicate (but the alternative is to close as out-of-scope, so no point reopening). Are you asking if the "fact" (common usage of the word)/"theory" (scientific usage of the word) of AGW actually conforms to some (unclear) definition of the term "scientific theory"? This seems more about English usage than a question that can be answered with empirical evidence. – Oddthinking Dec 2 '15 at 0:12
  • 1
    @Oddthinking yes, I am aware it's not a dupe, but I'd have closed as primarily opinion based otherwise. At least this way it points readers to some scientific info on AGW. – Sklivvz Dec 2 '15 at 11:53
  • 1
    It is a scientific theory according to Popper's falsification criterion (which is a quite widely accepted solution to the demarcation problem, although not without its critics), as it clearly does make falisifiable predictions. There is no such thing as a proven scientific theory regarding the real world, just theories with different levels of corroboration. – Dikran Marsupial Dec 2 '15 at 15:36
  • Well it makes testable predictions of the future based on observed trends from the past, and a model of how one variable (CO2 levels) affect another (global temperature), so it has a lot of the features needed to be a theory. – GordonM Dec 7 '15 at 13:28

Browse other questions tagged .