Why do cons try to debate science as if it were a political issue?

Question

How about supporting the scientific consensus on the big bang, global warming, and evolution?

Who has more credibility? Guys with Phds on the subject or right-wing political pundits and preachers?

SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS ON MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AkaO5Dnjg9b9aMfd2U07ACXty6IX?qid=20070419022039AAjSKhr

It's a scientific consensus based on OBSERVATIONS, EXPERIMENTATION, MODELING, and PEER REVIEW.

That doesn't mean anything???

Answer 1

Consensus just means they agree. Nothing is proven.

Here are Phds that disagree with the global warming theory:
http://video.google.com/url?docid=4499562022478442170&esrc=sr1&ev=v&q=great+global+warming+swindle&vidurl=http://video.google.com/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D4499562022478442170%26q%3Dgreat%2Bglobal%2Bwarming%2Bswindle%26hl%3Den&usg=AL29H22jFLLtDSW_ndip1m0Q3vJBN16PUg

It is now known that the sun is causing the global warming. All of the planets in the solar system have global warming, including Pluto(which is no longer called a planet).

More facts here:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Al2F_CbAN_1dlMSLgKqpXuXty6IX?qid=20070406122613AApjlbJ
Now That The Global Warming Theory Has Been Proven Wrong, Will Future Generations Blindly Trust Scientists?

Answer 2

"okay, a little "science 101" for you, there can BE no consensus in science, science either is or it isn't..okay? "

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Scientific theories can never be proven with 100% certainty, only disproven. The scientific consensus is the closest to "truth" that we have. Man made global warming, evolution, and the big bang all happen to be the best explanations scientists have to date. They base these conclusions on the FACTS. They don't just get together and form opinions out of thin air.

Answer 3

What ever happened to the scientific method we learned about in elementary school. That teaches you to constantly challenge the "held" views of science. So because a scientific consensus has been made it rules out the possibility for another option? Good thing alot of people in the field don't think like that and continually question and debate every hypothesis, because without concrete proof, those things are still hypothesis. Why shouldn't we have accepted the scientific community as they warned us about Global Cooling in the 70s and never again questioned it. You sound like the catholic church, trying to shut down Galilelo, "it is accepted as fact, why don't you just go along with it and stop all your damn annoying questions." Just let me say thank God that these libs today do not have the same power.

Answer 4

I'm afraid that you misunderstand the nature of science and human acceptance of new ideas. Out at the edges of science, theories can not be directly proved because the units being discussed are either too small to be independently observed or too large to be manipulated. Earth's climate is one of the 'too large' cases. All you can do with a 'too large' case is create models and test them after the fact on reality. In the case of global warming, the hypothesized time frame [decades] is so long that none of the models can possibly have been tested. Yet. And, as reported in multiple journals, the models that have been released have, so far, all proved to have serious flaws in either their data, their reasoning, or their mechanism (or all three). As to human acceptance of ideas, it is quite common for the vast majority to be wrong. Even for the vast majority of supposed scholars in the field [which hasn't actually happened in this case anyway]. The earth is flat. The earth is the center of the Universe and the sun travels around our planet. Light does not bend. The speed of light is infinite. The speed of light is limited by the invisible ether in which it travels. Chemical elements can be transmuted into gold. No chemical element can ever spontaneously become another. The total mass of a system is fixed [unless you violate the system's boundraries]. Energy can not be either created or destroyed, but only changed in form. Electrons can not 'hop' across an insulator. And on and on. Every single one of the assertions in the preceding paragraph was, at one time, the vast majority's truth, even the scientific community's truth. Later on, a small minority dared to say that it wasn't so, or wasn't always so. At the moment, we believe that the best science is that all of those statements are misleading or outright false. Global warming could well be the same -- another popular delusion that cold science can't prove correct because it isn't correct. *** Fact: Independent observatories have measured that the average temperature of the planet has increased from 1980 through 2004. Several different ones have also measured this same effect, over the same time period, for the planets Mars and Neptune. Further, the relative amount of warming seems quite congruent with both the square-cube law applied to solar radiation and the black body radiation law applied to the planets. Now, -- unless some group of humans have been commuting back and forth from their homes on Mars for the past 25 years, I think it is pretty plain that solar warming is the cause of what is happening. Further, we know that solar warmiing and solar cooling have both happened within human experience. Vikings lived quite well in Greenland 1000 years ago. It was cold, world-wide, after about 1300 AD. Humans caused neither the warmth in 1000 AD nor the cold in 1300 AD. Please find something else to worry about -- Iran and North Korea have offered themselves as possibles. :-)

Answer 5

Because the Libs do too.

Only listening to the scientists who support your agenda isn't consensus.

Remember 20 years ago when scientists were absolutely certain that acid rain would wipe us all out by now? How about last year when they were certain that the Bird Flu would wipe out a third of humanity? There have always been "experts" to warn us of the dangers of our ways- some correct, and others not. My question is, why is scientific debate being left up to politicians? The scientific community should be doing it themselves. As far as credibility goes, that's a matter for history to determine. Good Science understands how very little it knows. Alarmist science never does.

Here's my question. Even if we could, would it be ethical to stop global warming just to keep the planet more comfortable for ourselves? Should we just halt the geological and biological progress of our planet simply because we like it where it's at? That seems both selfish and arrogant.

Answer 6

There is NO consensus on any of the things you just said. NONE. Why not acknowledge that fact? Why not acknowledge that scientists once thought we were on a verge of a global cooling just 30 years ago?

If a guy with a Phd or has more credibility then why are the scientists screaming global warming is being taken way out of proportion listened to more intently by you then Al Gore?

Answer 7

uhhhh.... science, by it's nature, is not something that is resolved by "consensus". It's subject to ongoing peer review, alternative hypotheses, sharing of data for others to attempt to duplicate or refute. It's an ongoing process. It's not an election. You can't just say that because 51% of scientists believe in a hypothesis it's "case closed" -- let's not revisit it. If you do, you are guilty of the scientific equivalent of blasphemy. Remember, the consensus was once that the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, and lead could be turned in to gold.

Answer 8

I'm so sick of global warming gibberish, but this made me laugh. So, is the scientific standard now achieving a "consensus" that makes theories true with you guys? I think at one time there was a consensus of so-called wise men who agreed that the earth was flat. Maybe we should just put all scientific theories up for a popular vote? Just think of what we could do with all the excess grant money. A Prius in every garage!!!

Answer 9

Sigh. You might want to remember that all of these theories are just that, theories. They are not facts, they are best guesses based on observation. No one is saying that global warming is not occurring, they are debating who's fault it is. The "big bang" theory is just that, a theory. There are many SCIENTISTS who disagree with that theory as well as the theory of evolution as the driving force behind speciation. There are scientists that disagree with this as well. Science is much like a religion because you need to have faith in the scientists. Science is not infallible and you should remember this. Ten years ago, we KNEW an asteroid didn't kill the dinosaurs. Science is an evolution of theory that is often prooven wrong. I hope you meet these people you revere so much with their PhD, they are not nearly as smart as you hope they are.

In conclusion, science is a political issue because their is much debate amongst the scientists as well. Scientist are not void of political bias. Who has more credibility, cons scientists or liberal scientists? Neither.

Answer 10

The Big Bang, global warming and evolution are all theories. They have not been fully proven yet. Einstein's theory of relativity is just that... a theory. It hasn't been fully proven.

Newton's Laws of thermodynamics are laws, because, drum roll please, they have been proven. There is incontrovertable documentable evidence that Newton's laws are true.

I have no problem with the Big Bang and evolution. These theories make sense to me.

Global warming has not been proven even slightly in my opinion. The Earth has been around for 5 billion years, and has had serious climactic changes. Humanity has been around less than 100,000 years, with industry only the last few hundred.

How many dinosaurs drove SUVs?