How do you know that the majority of scientist are not wrong about global warming?

Question

Science has been wrong before.

I never said the were wrong but what if they are.

Answer 1

1) Because I've examined the data myself and agree with their conclusions.

2) Because "Science has been wrong before" is an exceptionally weak argument. When there is a scientific consensus, it's right far more often than it's wrong.

3) I don't know for sure that the consensus is right, but the evidence all points to it being correct. If we fail to take action, we might doom ourselves to catastrophic climate change. If we take action and it turns out to have been wrong, we'll still benefit from having become more energy efficient and reducing our dependency on fossil fuels.

Answer 2

Good point, but actually more scientists are having the courage to dispute the "man-made global warming" hoax. More so than those who stubbornly believe it without proof.

A long time ago there was a consensus amongst scientists who believed the earth was flat. They ridiculed those who believed the earth was a sphere. Sounds a little like the use of the term "global warming skeptic" to describe anyone who's not in lock-step with the Al Gore crowd. "Don't speak against the state religion or you will be brought down."

For some reason people think that scientists are infallible. The whole idea of science is that it is constantly in flux and never set in stone. New theories conflict with old ones.

You can always tell a phony scientist when they use the term "consensus." When you hear that word you know they don't know what they're talking about.

Answer 3

Scientists by definition should constantly be asking themselves this question and querying and testing the data to answer it.

To answer your question, perhaps we will discover some previously unknown or misunderstood factor which will lead the earth into the opposite direction. Perhaps a glaciation could occur which would negate global warming, since it is thought that we are in an interglacial anyway.

However, questioning the data and our understanding so far still indicates more and more that we are heating up our planet and that known natural processes will not counter it, and that furthermore, we are getting all kinds of positive feedback that are intensifying it.

We humans may furthermore do things that will make global warming irrelevant to us: thermonuclear war, massive die-off due to overdependence on fossil fuels that peak and then begin to run out, over-commercialization and destruction of our food system, etc.

In the long run anything could happen. But in the long run, due to our short-sighted character, humans are unlikely to be a significant factor anyway.

Regarding your point that science has been wrong before, I doubt that any scientist would dispute you there. Indeed, every theory, proposition, fact or observation is to be considered potentially wrong and is to be continually tested, and every new piece of science in some way emerges by testing and transcending a previous misunderstanding or incomplete or wrong notion. The whole project of science -- that is to say of the systematic development of human knowledge -- is a project of trying to discover where we have been wrong, both incrimentally and in our major premises. I think therefore that your question should be how do we test the increasingly complex body of data, presuppositions, propositions and theories of what we understand to be global warming, not whether how do we know that a majority of scientists is right or wrong about it. Understanding, of course, should lead to action.

An example is is Newton's description of gravity in terms of massive objects attraction to each other. Einstein through synthesis of a wider variety of observations and theories figured out that gravity was instead the effect of distortions in the time-space fabric of the universe, leading to a very different understanding.

Answer 4

The information and the facts about global warming from the majority of scientists are not the only source. People throughout the industrialized nations of the world know that the activities of their countries are creating major climate changes locally where they live. This translates into major changes throughout the world and the result is global warming. It doesn't take a scientist to know that replacing forests with asphalt roads and parking lots is going to cancel the cooling effects of forests, because they cease to exist. Multiply this with the effects of emissions from the cars that are on those roads and it completes the effects of global warming. Unfortunately, current efforts to curb global warming may not be enough. As usual, it looks like it may take more disasters, like hurricane Katrina in the Gulf of Mexico, and the tsunami in the Indian Ocean, to show the world that we are still going in the wrong direction.

So therefore, just to recap briefly:
No more forests = no more cooling and oxygen production
Pavement and buildings = more heat on top of a lack of cooling
Cars, homes and factories = more heat production and the emissions and gases that trap the heat and prevent the heat from escaping
Personally, I see warming trends on a local basis everyday. Since I know people all over the world live in communities a lot like mine, I know by visiting and by hearing it from people that they are experiencing the same warming trends. Put all this together and you have warming trends on a global scale, also known as global warming.

And all this proof without science or complex formulas.
That's how I know.
The fact that scientists are also noticing it and measuring it only helps to confirm what I already know.
Thanks!!!!!!!!

Answer 5

The 880 was the average number of times every scientist was wrong. Just kidding, obviously it is far higher. In studying paleoanthropology, I think they always seem to be proven wrong though some day I expect they will get something right.

Answer 6

Because I've looked at the data and I'm convinced.

And the "skeptics' stuff is very low quality, often obviously politically biased.

If you have doubts, this site is excellent.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

I'm with Admiral Truly:

"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”

Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)
Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut and the first Commander of the Naval Space Command

Good websites for more info:

http://profend.com/global-warming/
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/
http://www.realclimate.org
"climate science from climate scientists"

Answer 7

We are an arrogant race to be sure,what person would call it science when people try to predict that which they cannot control. Relax in a few more years the SCIENTIST will reprogram their computers to show the evidence of a global cool down like they did in 1984,get real follow the money who makes their living of government grants,if there is no looming disaster then there is no need for more money to study this resent looming destruction of the human race. RUN THE SKY IS FALLING. YEAH RIGHT!!!!!!

Answer 8

Can you list a few of the times you feel the scientists have been wrong? There are several things that people regularly post on here, but they're bogus. Egregiously so.

Not saying you're wrong, just wondering what you're referring to.

Answer 9

Why does it matter one way or the other. The environment needs to be fixed and at least they are getting some attention for this to happen. They are wrong about the cause and the way to fix the problem-thats for sure.

Answer 10

Somebody once counted the mistakes of science and they were around 880... this compares to the millions made by politicians.


Q: Do you avoid putting your fingers in the electric plug because you trust somebody that there is something you can´t see?


Most structural stresses scenario for bridges have only been simulated by computer... you still trust bridges right ? so you trust computer Finite-Elements-Method, right ?