Isn't science based on fact and not speculation?How is it that scientists differ on global warming?

Question

Is it dependent on who is funding their research?

Answer 1

I believe all scientists, or at least 99% , believe global warming is happening, what the disagreement is about is whether it is just a cycle that we are going through or it is man made.........In my opinion there is no way to tell because records have not been kept since the beginning of time so how can anyone say what is fact from fiction........................

Answer 2

Science is subject to interpretation and opinion, just like everything else in this world.

I can provide historical and scientific fats that show dramatic global climate change has occurred repeatedly through the life span of the planet.

NASA had to recant its claims that 1998 was the hottest year, now it is 1935 that was the hottest, and 5 of the 10 Hottest years happened before World War 2!

Some scientists had evidence to show temperatures have risen on several planets at the same rate as here on earth and that the sun is going through a period called a Maximum until 2012.

A lot of this evidence is ignored by man made climate change supporters. Why? because it does not fit in with their opinion and view on what is happening today.

Yes a lot of the opinions are based on who is funding the research. And that is a horrible way to advance science by the way... Science needs to be about facts not political objectives.

Also science is far from perfect, there is rarely one way to accomplish something and the data you get can take you in whole different directions than you would expect.

I say get politics out of science, it is the only way things will get done.

Answer 3

Science is based on fact but it is also a method of finding new facts. The scientist makes an educated guess and applies all the relevant facts known to support or disprove the guess, then they apply observation and test the guess over and over. If they always achieve the same results then their guess is probably correct. They present this as a theory. Other scientist question their methods and if most agree their methods of testing their guess were unbiased and thorough then the theory is accepted.
In a perfect world the source of their funding should not matter but this world is far from perfect so sometimes it does. But when that is the case you can rely on the fact that other scientist will question their methods and find fault. The problem sometimes happens that many scientist disagree with each other over a theory or conclusion. Sometimes we laymen must just be patient because we lack the knowledge to know who is most likely right. Supporting one side or the other without understanding the issue is kinda pointless.

Answer 4

No not at all. Science begins with speculation then seeks proof to bolster the speculation. The thing that happens often even with peer review is that the peers like the sound of the speculation and accept evidence for it easily while being critical of evidence against it. Scientists are human they have there prejudices and blind spots like we all do.

Yes results often depend on funding. If the results produced are not along the lines of what those funding the research want they are likely to terminate funding.

Answer 5

Science is based on evidence..true, but not all scientists agree that all evidence is valid. All evidence must be submitted for peer review. That means that even the slightest flaw in the data will be found out. If the flaw is of such a nature as to invalidate the research then the data must be once again collected, evaluated and submitted. When a large majority of scientists agree that something is valid, it usually is. Nobody now has suggested that climate change isn't happening..except for a few die hards...the question now is any part of this change man-made. The evidence for this not totally overwhelming, but there's is more than enough to convince prudent people that putting more CO2 into our paper thin atmosphere is a major contributor to the problem. In any event the effects of climate change are universal and can't be denied....longer summers..shorter winters..more extreme weather..that's a fact!

Answer 6

One of my former instructors, a scientist and a doctor, teaches that theories can be proven and suppositions are just speculation. Science demands a 99% sureity in it's results. A "consensus" only requires a 50% plus one. There is no such thing as a consensus when it comes to theories. That is the problem with "global warming". The evidence does not rise to the level needed to be a realistic theory. All the global warming crowd has now is speculation fueled by fears, and powered by political money.

Answer 7

Global warming is a theory, with the popular assumption that it is caused mainly by greenhouse gases. Just like any theory, it can be disproven when a new significant and relevant fact comes along to show that greenhouse gases account for 10% of the global warming, and that global warming is a global trend that occurs every 10,000 years or so (which is another theory).

Answer 8

Most of the time the evidence leads to conclusions and those lead to theories. theories over time and test become science fact. But who pays for the reaserch effecting the outcome? that is a fact of life in our society, oil companies pay for any one who says it is false and who pays for those that say it is fact? I've no idea, this confounds most people so they choose a side that they want. Science and of course fact will in the long run not care a bit, if people like it or not. So I think, take it serious and do the research because if it is fact the outcome is going to hurt. simple logic" if you see it coming, get out of the way"

Answer 9

The media and some of the kooks here will give you the impression that scientists are evenly divided, but that's not the case at all. The great majority of scientists consider manmade global warming a settled issue. Sure, you can find some who disagree, just as you can find scientists who don't believe in evolution or who think the earth is only six thousand years old. Read a few science journals and you'll see what I mean.

Answer 10

Supposed to be so! Here's a thought, if glaciers and icebergs are 90% below the water then we could compare them to a glass of water with ice cubes. If we let the glass sit and the ice melts the level of water will likely go down and so with glaciers and icebergs. So what are they worried about??? It's all about money and hoodwinking the general public. Global warming is a farce! A political ploy blown way out of proportion by loony Al Gore.