Can we believe anything climate scientoligists tell us ?

Question

Half of them that are government or U.N. funded tell us that global warming is man made, the other half that are funded by big business tell us that it's a naturally occuring event caused by the Sun, so which scientists do we believe and how does a layperson pick which group of scientists to believe are we subject to press propaganda or do we read the facts from a variety of sources and make up our own minds ? and then again can't facts be manipulated to suit your own agenda ??

Answer 1

What do your senses tell you?

Answer 2

Any scientist working for the government would probably be telling propaganda. At first after seeing some parts and previews of the "Inconvenient Truth" I thought gore actually knew everything about global warming. But it turns out his facts arent all exactly accurate after ive seen this one video of these scientists from top universities that explains the flaws of al gore's movie. Ive heard from those scientists that global warming is not entirely man made and that it's a natural process. Humans only emit a small percentage of CO2, compared to nature, which emits way much more CO2. But, if you still cant decide for yourself, look at a variety of sources and see if they actually give reasonable scientific proof of what they say and then you can decide which is true or not.

But really, its not important on which side you believe in. Global warming, wheter man made or not, we all need to figure out efficient ways of living with this time of crisis. We cant stop global warming because everything is changing so quickly that we cant just fix everything up quickly. But what we can do right now is to do whatever it takes to decrease CO2 emission on our part.

Answer 3

i agree with you about scientist who work for companies who make their money producing polluting products - sort of like the tobacco industry scientist who, like everyone else, want to eat and like to live indoors. Hitler had scientists working for him also.

But actually a lot of governmental scientists support the idea of accelerating global warming by human activity that results in climate change. NOAA, NASA and the UN take strong position against global warming but the spin in the media - funded by big corporate advertisers remember - plays this down.

also, i don't understand why people expect scientists to be able to predict outcomes on a global scale when these same folks can't predict who will win a football game on friday night.

scientists use models and are confident in the data that is supported across the widest range of all of them and then make statements accordingly.

discrediting science has long been a practice by those with small minds who have no better defense than to try to make the scientists seem like lay people.

at least it's a step up from name calling as a tool for intelligent debate!

Answer 4

The best way to evaluate the scientists is to find out what they have to lose or gain by what they say. If the scientists are representing big corporations, or work in private industry, you should take a close look at their data. Not to say they are guilty by default, you should just be careful. Government scientists can be manipulated by the current administration, in that their jobs may disappear if they don't support the agenda (dem or repub). Scientists in academic institutions are not to be trusted by default, but if they have nothing to gain from their work, other than their reputation, I figure they are probably presenting the data as it is, so I tend to trust that more. But nothing beats reading a lot and educating yourself. Be a critical thinker! Ask tough questions, and if the person seems uncomfortable with your question (as long as you are being respectful) then you gotta wonder what they are hiding.

Answer 5

We believe that it is man made. Both parties have incentives to say it is natural, assuming the government is the US government. However, government funded research is much more accurate than private. The government is not allowed to lie in such cases, and USUALLY don't. USUALLY. Also, those for man made have a ton of evidence, while virtually all evidence on the natural side is easily disproved.

Answer 6

If someone gave you credible evidence that you might get run over by a truck tomorrow if you crossed at a certain intersection, what would you do? Would you "take your chances" and cross at the intersection anyway and throw caution to the wind? OR, would you try to avoid that intersection tomorrow just to "play it safe"??

Global warming presents the same challenge.

After considering both sides of the argument, would you continue to suander all of the Earth's natural resources and "take your chances"? OR, would you try to avoid the possibility of ecological catastrophe by at least making an effort to preserve and protect the planet from disaster??

Global warming is a cyclical event that has gone on for millions of years on Earth. BUT, there's also a logical and pragmatic reasoning that man's "industrial revolution" of these past 150 years has also contributed to the escalation of the natural process due to smoke-belching factories, vehicle emissions and the routine depletion of our natural resources such as oil, coal, rain forests, waterways, minerals, the ozone layer, leaching landfills full of our toxic, non-biodegradable wastes, oceans, mangrove forests and forests.

Wouldn't it make sense to try to take care of those things in any effort to preserve and protect our world? Even if the scientists are proven wrong - and global warming isn't an earth-shattering threat - what could possible be wrong with practicing reasonable conservation?

Man was given 'dominion' over all things on Earth. Yet, we have squandered that privilege. Now, as elephants, lions, insects, Venus flytraps, fish, frogs, exotic plants, ocean life, bats, endangered birds, precious water supplies, and all other of Nature's resources begin to dwindle away, what makes us think that WE will not become extinct as well??

Most of you who read this are probably much younger than I; most of you will eventually marry, have children, enjoy beautiful grandchildren, and perhaps even live to see the birth of your own great-grandchldren. And, as those wonderful descendants of yours become adults and begin to realize what WE - knowingly - did to destroy the Earth's ecosystem, they will come to us and ask, "WHY, Grandpa? You knew you were squandering the land and all its bounty. WHY didn't you do something to stop it - or at least slow the process?"

And when these beautiful children have to wear gas masks to breathe fresh air, or can't find enough clean drinking water, they will ask, "WHY, Grandma? WHY did you choose not to REduce, REuse, or REcycle? WHY did you think it was acceptable to rape the land, allow rare plants and animals to become extinct, and leave us to live in squalor and contamination of YOUR waste?"

WHAT WILL YOUR ANSWER BE??
-RKO- 05/16/07

Answer 7

How about the scientists who tell us that other planets are getting warmer too. Don't tell me that Klaatu* has an SUV.

* Klaatu was in interstellar traveler in the S-F movie The Day the Earth Stood Still, a classic.

Answer 8

You don't have to beleive either - you can go and examine the evidence for yourself of speak to lay people who have themselves been affected by climate change. Those for example whose island homes have been inundated by rising sea levels, the one million farmers forced to abandon their lands, the winter sports operators who have had to close ski resorts, the tour operators who have had to cancel destinations, the 60 million African and Asian people affected by drought, the families of the 35,000 people who died in France because of a heatwave, the people who live in mountain regions who for decades and have witnessed the glaciers retreating, the fishermen whose boats have been left high and dry by disappearing lakes.

If you see the evidence for yourself of speak to the people who have ben directly affected by global warming then you'll know which side is telling the truth.

Alternatively, examine the evidence for yourself - if someone says something then go and verify it, do your own research.

Perhaps the most conclusive evidence comes from ExxonMobil who now admit that after spending tens of millions of dollars on trying to disprove global warming it's been to no avail as they've found nothing to refute it.

By the way, the majority of scientists involved in the study of climate change are neither funded by governments or oil companies, most are completely independent and have nothing to lose or gain whichever side of the argument they take. I know, I'm one of them.

If you want a more accurate picture of global warming then take a holiday to any country outside the US - science is left to itself, the politicians, religions and big business don't get involved so there's no sides to take - just facts to be presented.

Answer 9

This is not a 50/50 proposition, and it's not even close. A recent study published in Science (the world's most prestigious scientific journal) found that out of 928 climate-change papers appearing in peer-reviewed journals, NOT ONE expressed doubt that humans are at least partly responsible.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/306/5702/1686

Answer 10

The slpit in the scienttific community is not 50/50. it's more like 97/3 with 97% saying it's man-made.

Answer 11

via fact they are decrease than a 24/7 microscope from autonomous journalists, political authors, different media shops, investigative journalists - and all and sundry of them are coiled and able to bounce on any sensational tale that they get wind of. And these days, the thoughts are coming speedy and livid.