Should we trust the random theorys of scientists?

Question

Climatologist Calls Global Warming Fears 'Greatest Deception in the History of Science'...

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

I didnt write the article, I like how when people have no responce they correct spelling/

All of your points on recycling are valid, however, thats not the point. We should not put blind faith in unproven science. Should we have burned everything in the 60's to combat global cooling? Should we invest so much money and cripple business for a hunch?

No Jerry post it

Answer 1

Global warming is not a random theory. It is a political agenda.

Never never trust politicians who pretend to be scientists. They have a conflict of interest. Creating a new "crisis" to solve will give them new powers to regulate and tax. That's what all the noise is about. That's why the government controlled media are pushing the global warming fiction so relentlessly.

Answer 2

Sceintific theories are developed from observable phenomena.

They are observable, and they are repeatable, and they are subject to test and verification. They are not random. The word "theory" in sceintific parlance does not mean "guess" or "hunch".

A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.

A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence. In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory.

As far as proof goes, the fact that we don't know everything does not mean we don't know anything. We may not have absolute proof, but there comes a time when we can see the direction in which the evidence is tipping the balance scales. What we should be concerned with is whether the projected impacts of global warming are more likely to occur than not.

Certainly no one is advocating that we should embark on expensive and draconian efforts to stave off global warming without any evidence that the phenomenon is happening or that it will have adverse impacts. But scientific research to date has provided compelling evidence for the reality of global warming and more than adequate grounds for serious concern about its potential for causing negative social, economic and environmental consequences.

Many skeptics deny that this evidence is strong enough to qualify as proof. In fact, some dismiss virtually every scientific finding that support the global warming theory as "junk science" while citing approvingly, though often VERY selectively, other research that they believe casts doubt on the theory.

What many non-scientists do not realize is that when scientists talk about "uncertainty", they're typically referring to findings in which they have a level of confidence below a range of about 90 to 99%. In short, they classify things as "uncertain" at a much higher level than most of us in do in our daily lives; to the average person, saying that something is uncertain generally means it has less than a 50-50 chance of happening.

Disputes among scientists are usually over uncertainties at this extreme end of the scale (there's no need to argue about things they mostly agree on) but the public often concludes from these debates that scientists can't agree on anything. Worse, they generally assume that if scientists can't agree about the problem, the problem must not be that bad after all. What they often fail to realize is that uncertainty goes in both directions-that it's just as likely that the situation will be worse than scientists project as that it will be better.

Answer 3

There are two sides to every story. In this case, no one knows for sure what is happening, because there isn't enough data. We've been studying weather patterns for less than two hundred years; by the time we started, there was already enough pollution to have possibly affected the earth. On the other hand, there is evidence that something is happening, and that if man isn't completely responsible, he is at least helping things along. I look at it this way: most things that will help slow global warming (if it exists) are a good idea anyway. Driving less makes economic sense. Recycling is a good way to conserve resources. Keeping water clean means we have enough to drink. So why not do these things while the scientists duke it out?

Answer 4

I'd rather trust scientists than anybody who can't spell theories.

anyway, the point you are pressing towards is "if they were wrong about global warming why not about evolution" or something retarded like that. Because that is all you wingnuts care about.

Here's a thought: this planet's weather systems are complex. We've not been measuring them for a long time (we only have valid measurements for decades, people a long time ago didn't have the instruments nor the knowledge to record the weather in a scientific fashion), and therefore it is hard to say whether this is a natural phenomenon or man-made or just a glitch.

However, for evolution there is no such doubt. Sorry.

ps. you also spelled 'response' wrong.

Answer 5

you are just an idiot if cant see the effects of the pollution and carbon dioxide.

'Greatest Deception in the History of Science' oh well there goes our planet next you'll be saying the world is a lie.

yeah it's only our future of human kind we are gambling with.

damn there is no deception no lies just cold hard truth and some scientist will deny it but majority of them tell the truth.

science = truth.

and in 50 years we will all be wondering and regretting that we could done some thing

FOR GODS SAKE OPEN YOUR EYES PEOPLE...


DON'T GAMBLE WITH THE FUTURE.

Answer 6

theories are the explanation to the given data, they are not supposed to be just plucked out of thin air...

i would rather trust a scientific theory rather than a fairy tale. why do you want science to look bad? do you hate toothpaste because science made it?

Answer 7

Scientists have jobs because they make theories. Scientists do not just pick info out of thin air. They research and study their butts off.

Answer 8

No such thing as random theories.

Answer 9

I don't think we should trust scientists at all. I mean, they can use science to prove things that are even REMOTELY true.

(That's sarcasm, you fools.)

Answer 10

not at all.. they keep on changing every few years