I refer to the letter Anti-climate change scientists anything but neutral and Global warming - getting the facts right .

My previous letter merely highlighted the views and findings of the other side, because the common belief is to say ‘Global warming caused by humans' is real. When in reality there is still a big debate going on, as evidenced by the thousands of scientific papers, journals and websites stating the studies which were pointed out by my dear respondents.

Indeed, Lo has absolutely valid points and arguments in stating global warming theory skeptics are not as neutral as they seem to be, and that they could be partly funded by oil and gas giants and produce biased conclusions. But do you not agree the same can be said of global warming theory supporters?

Lok stated ‘One study encompassing close to one thousand articles on climate in peer-reviewed scientific journals showed that 75% gave explicit or implicit agreement to the consensus view on global warming, with the remaining 25% taking no position' and ‘Note also that the IPCC has received many accolades as well'.

So therefore, not all 100% agreed, not even close to 98% and not even ‘implicitly'. Thus it can only imply there are still significant doubts about the global warming theory.

In science, it is not the number of supporters or the percentage of people in consensus or the number of accolades presented which determines a scientific fact. Readers will do well to remember this point.

Let's not even talk about whether the global warming theory is real or not. For a moment, do not focus on the conclusion and focus on the crucial step before reaching the conclusion.

As with people with engineering and scientific training, I value standardisation, precision and consistency. The very basis of establishing scientific facts requires the scientific process. This is by formulating a hypothesis, conducting observations, measurement, testing, analysis and then the conclusion of an experiment.

But to have the utmost confidence in a predicted condition, the experiment must be an independently repeatable and testable hypothesis. This is why we are so sure of many scientific laws and theories (up to a certain boundary and limit), so much so we can send humans to the Moon and enjoy technological gadgets in our homes.

Herein lies the question (albeit a long one) and ultimately one which made me doubt the whole debate: ‘What is the single or a set of experiments defined with standard parameters, when performed (and repeated and tested many times over) will produce consistent results and conclusions which are indisputable with regards to the global warming theory?'

I am afraid no one can answer us this question. This point alone, and an extremely important one, if not properly addressed totally, absolutely negates any arguments put forward by both camps. And the 'debate' rages on and on.

The process of testing the global warming theory has never been standardised and the various experiments or Global Climate Models produced different results. There are simply too many variables, lack of double blind tests (to eliminate unconscious biased measurements), too many different assumptions (or lack of) and no controlled environment to test the theory properly.

Just because the perceived majority of the world's scientists say the global warming theory is real and in ‘consensus' by whatever studies out there, it cannot and must not be accepted as a 'sure thing'. The scientific process must be adhered to the dot.

Otherwise, there is no point in stating a conclusion. Even for established scientific knowledge such as the Law of Gravitation which we all know can be proven, tested consistently and supported by mathematical equations; the law does not hold water once we get into the scales of sub-nanometer proportions, hence the Quantum Mechanics theory applies for particles.

But at the very least, both branches of these sciences can be explained and tested consistently in a controlled lab environment as well as in the field. Unfortunately for the global warming theory, it cannot.

Yes, one may argue that there are no mathematical equations to model biological concepts, no equations for calculating human behavior and no equations for influenza spread. Only repeatable experiments, qualitative analysis and consistent test results are required, and the global warming theory falls in this category.

I beg to differ. Fact is, the global warming theory must be explained consistently by physical scientific laws and theories for it is physical science.

So, before we take sides, I hope people realise why the global warming theory debate is far from over and the reasons behind it. Let's not 'put the cart before the horse' as the conclusions are useless without a proper standardisation of scientific methods being adopted.

It is no different from criminal forensic evidence investigation. If the evidence collection method does not follow proper procedures, or the evidence gets contaminated, the evidence can never be admitted in a court of law. Let alone trying to prove any allegations beyond reasonable doubt.

Let's not buy junk science, and certainly not junk media!