Should all scientific study since the dawn of man be disregarded?

Question

If 90% of the scientists on earth today are wrong about global warming shouldn't we just disregard every bit of science ever done.
If this were the middle ages instead of the 21st century, would we all be arguing over whether or not the world was flat.

Most scientists agree that human activity started a cycle of global warming. This cycle cannot be stopped. Arguing over it seems a moot point at this time.

The question is do we take steps to stop CO2 emissions now. Is it too late, or is there a benefit?

Kudos to Firestorm. What a great answer.

Answer 1

Your whole question is built on a faulty premis. Keep in mind we only have climate records for the past 150 years. The U.N. and global warming scientists say that the earth has been steadily heating up over the past fifty years or so. HOWEVER, this ignores a couple facts:

1) The hottest year on record? 1936!
2) During the 1970s, the data of the day showed the earth to be cooling, not warming.

But this is only the tip of the iceburg.

Do we know how scientists opperate?
Scientists are not infallible, and most don't challenge things like (man-induced) global warming or darwinian (macro) evolution because if they did their funds, their lifeblood would dry up. It's all about peer pressure man... Sorry. But the fact remains that human-induced global warming IS bad science.

Let's play numbers, shall we?

Let us say that the population of the world is 6 billion (that is a roughly correct estimate). Now let us say that one-one hundred thousandth of the population are scientists. That would give is 60,000 scientists worldwide. I'm sure we can ALL agree that 60,000 is a GROSS underestimate of the number of scientists worldwide, but this is just for an example.

Now, there is a claimed number of 2,500 scientists that say global warming is man-made and that man can stop it. If we take our 60,000 scientists worldwide and multiply that by .04, or 4%, we get 2,400. This is roughly the number of scientists that have been presented to us.

What does this tell us? Hypothetically, we have JUST over 4% of scientists worldwide telling us that we are to blame for global warming, and that we have to do something about it.

Now, let's be hypothecial and break it down further. Let us say that there are 10 fields of science (again, a gross underestimate), and that each is equally represented among the 60,000. That is 6,000 per field. Applying that to our 2,500, that means there are 250 per field represented. Applying our numbers from earlier, that is again JUST over 4% from each field saying that global warming is man made.

For the sake of argument, let us say our 2,500 is made up of nothing but 2 fields, weather experts and astrophysicists. I'm again sure we can agree that those 2 fields would know more about climate than ANYONE else. That gives us 1,250 from each field. If we have 6,000 in each field, we are STILL only talking about 21% of the "experts" preaching man-made global warming.

Obviously, this is all conjecture. We don't know how many scientists there are worldwide. We don't know how many different fields of science there are. We don't know the specific break-up of scientists per field. We don't know what the qualifications are of the 2,500 "experts" saying global warming is caused by man.

However, this does point out that even if we DID know all of those things, we are still only talking about a FRACTION of true experts trying to cram this theory down our throats.

But this is not all! Let's look at the problems behind the methodology.

There is NO way to ascertain that "global warming" is ANYTHING more than a cyclical climatological phenominon that holds up under scrutingy enough to be declared the 100% truth.

I'm BEGGING people here to just IGNORE the conclusions of the UN report for long enough to examine the methodology behind the report from a pure COMMON FREAKING SENSE perspective.....

We have only got DEFINITE, VERIFIABLE, RECORDED temperature/climate readings for approximately the last 150 years. THATS IT. EVERYTHING ELSE OUT THERE IS ANECDOTAL, AND BY IT'S VERY NATURE CONTAINS INNACCURACY.

There is evidence in the form of satellite photography and imagery that the polar icecaps are shrinking, compared to 20-30 years ago. WHAT IS CONVENIENTLY LEFT OUT OF STATEMENTS LIKE THAT IS THE FACT THAT WE HAVE ONLY BEEN PUTTING SATELLITES IN ORBIT FOR LESS THAN 60 YEARS. So, while those icecaps can be shown to have shrunk, it is deceptive and misleading information to put out there, as we can't really say with ANY DEGREE OF ACCURACY if they have shrunk or grown since, 1930, 1830, 1500, or 5 BC......theres simply no realistic way to verify it.


Examining ice core samples to show differing envrinmental condistions in varying layers of ice? HOW DO YOU ESTABLISH AN ACCURATE TIMELINE FOR COMPARISON? What about the distance between where the core samples are taken? My area got 6 inches of snow last night, and a mere 10 miles away, they had 10 inches....... THE LACK OF A TRUE "CONTROL GROUP" FOR THE EXAMINATION PROCESS MAKES THE WHOLE IDEA INCREDIBLY UNSCIENTIFIC BY IT'S VERY NATURE................


ANYTHING that involves the use of dating via radioactive isotope decay (also called "carbon-12 dating", where they compare levels of carbon-12 and carbon-14 in organic matter)?? How on Earth are they coming up with SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE dates of thousands, or tens of thousands of years with this methodology? The "radioactive halflife" of these isotopes is claimed to be 5,730 years.....yet we have only had the technology to detect this sort of radioactive decay for somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 years!!!!!

It also REQUIRES the assumption carbon-14 has always been present in the atmosphere and in all living things IN THE SAME CONCENTRATIONS. ERGO, ANY ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE THAT EFFECTED THE CONCENTRATION RENDERS THE WHOLE DATING METHODOLOGY INNACCURATE!!!! Howevere, since we have No TRULY verifiable, accurate environmental records beyond 150 years or so ago, it is simply assumed that no such event(s) occurred.......

Yet, such flawed methodolgies as I've mentioned above are being used to promote "global warming" is a thing of catastrophic environmental impact, and at the same time DENY that it is potentially a naturally occurring cyclical phenominon....


THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT JUNK SCIENCE IS, FOLKS!!!!!!

(On an offtopic note, this is the longest post I've ever done here. LOL)

Answer 2

"If this were the middle ages instead of the 21st century, would we all be arguing over whether or not the world was flat."

In the middle ages, 90% of scientists argued the world was flat. Over 90% thought Newton's Laws were exact, until Einstein proved it was an approximation. In the early 70's, scientist said we were heading for a global cooling disaster unless we cut out, guess what, greenhouse gasses.

History shows "science" is constantly wrong and being revised.

Are you trying to substantiate scientists or not?

Nobody disagrees the world is heating. Very slowly. But is this caused by human activity, or would it be happening whether we were here or not? The Earth has Ice Ages and warming ages. All the time.

Answer 3

Sir, the earth actually is flat. There was no landing on the moon, it was all staged. There are WMDs in Iraq.

Science of grossly overrated. Look at it logically, why would you waste time studying something when you can just make up facts? A total waste of time, all of it.

Burn more books, lets see if it really contributes to global warming.

Look, my friend, you really need some education. I went outside this morning and it is incredibly cold. There cannot be global warming because it is really cold here. That is proof.

Sadly, I now need to say something so some people won't misintrepret what I said. Most of what I said is TOTALLY untrue. It was sarcism. We really do have a problem with global warming, the earth is really round, we did land a man on the moon.

Finally, science, if done properly, is a lot better than guesses and feelings and theory. Too many people reach a conclusion first, then look for facts. It should be the other way around.

Answer 4

Most scientist also thought the world was flat at one time. Just because scientist say it it doesn't make it so. In the 80's they said we were headed for the ice ages and I am still waiting. The Ca. crops were just destroyed by record colds so they were praying that it would warm up. How many times have they changed on the health benefits of the egg (it's good oh no it's bad)?

Answer 5

i could only in part believe a number of this. too a lot porn for a guy can harm the intimacy he has with a spouse/gf and might impact his overall performance. yet how a lot is "severe?" the place is the line drawn? Is it 0? could somebody say that 10 min each and every week is only too a lot? a hundred min? 10 hours? internet porn has been quite obtainable for a physically powerful 15-20 years. how a lot of human beings below the age of 30 could even have the flexibility to bear in ideas what adult men have been like "till now porn." there are various youthful human beings posting right here. As for "daily exhilaration," study have genuinely shown that greater established ejaculations genuinely decrease the guy's possibility for prostate maximum cancers.

Answer 6

Dont forget the eviromentalists on paper bags and rain forest and pushed for plastic bags now those plastic bags are even worse. Or the drugs that help one disease with side effects that are just as bad. It boils down to greed for the money they want or need. After all hasnt the earth been thru many Ice ages so it be safe to say that it has gone thru global warming trends too

Answer 7

Only the ones who have reached a conclusion before the study actually began.