SCIENCE! Should we trust real trained and educated Scientists, or Republicans ...for our scientific knowledge?

Question

I trust trained and educated Scientists for my scientific information. I don't trust nontrained, wanna be scientists(Republicans) for my scientific information.

As for Global Warming...it is a long-term problem. The issue is based upon real scientific facts and data about excessive man made CO2. Natural change occurs, but in the last 100 years..look at all the pollution we've put in our atmosphere!

Sooner or later, our pollution will catch up with humanity. Most people know this...except the Republicans.

Again, the Republicans have showed up, and decided to give us a Science lesson. Which of course...it's the opposite of what the REAL Scientists have to say.

Answer 1

I've learned, in my 53 years, that a republican just can't be trusted.

They'll preach family values and Christianity but the minute your back is turned they'll steal you blind and molest your little boys.

.

Answer 2

And regular science is better ? Consistently getting the same result for the same test is considered scientific proof (or as good as). Throughout history, science has "proved" things by conducting the same test over and over, and getting the same result... only to be proven wrong by the next generation of scientists. As nutty as it sounds, just because you have a theory that passes all your tests, doesn't mean that it's necessarily correct. You may not be running the right tests, and oblivious to the fact. Why should I believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old based upon today's thinking ? What's to stop the next generation of regular scientist "proving" the interpretation of the results was incorrect ? Who's to say that their presumptions on decay are correct ? And with billions of years of land erosion, why aren't the oceans full of mud ? And how is regular science any better when it invents Dark Matter because otherwise, none of it's astrophysics calculations make any sense ? That's "creation" science territory if you ask me. And BTW, which set of climate change scientists should I believe ? They both have "proof". You can laugh at creation scientists, and I''ll laugh right alongside you. But I'll also laugh at you for believing that our current set of scientists has it 'all' worked out, when it comes to the big questions. We're a long way off having the right to laugh at anyone's crazy notions. 2 below: Real science doesn't have an ideological & philosophical agenda of hate behind it, like yours does, No real science is all about funding. Lie, cheat, steal; whatever it takes to get more funding. I call them fundingmentalists.

Answer 3

You should no more trust the "Scientists" than anyone else. Science is wonderful but throughout all of history it has been wrong much more than right. It depends too much on interpretation and peer review that is often dogmatic and confines direction in the course that is excepted not a course of discovery.

The whole thing is based on two points of information,,, CO2 levels and temperatures. No one can definitively state whether CO2 levels cause temperature rise or are only a symptom of it. Water vapor is by far the the leading green house gas. We also now know that the information obtained for temperature data is false because of the placement of the devices too record them. In closing a consensus is nothing to base your life and future on,,I will wait on PROOF!


By the way just what is the carbon foot print on that Mustang?

Answer 4

Excellent Heart And Troll
Another way to look at this thing we call global warming is. What if we are still working our way out of the last Yellowstone eruption, and the ice age that would follow such an eruption? Could this not be the case, 700,000 thousand years in the making. Also Yellowstone is over due for it's next eruption so go figure maybe you want have to worry about global warming after all.

I working in a huge chilling station operation and we look at the forecast daily and weekly and I can say of sure that 9 out of weather forecast more than two days out will be wrong.

Answer 5

One question, though. If we are responsible for global warming with our industry, what industrialized society was responsible for the last global warming 20,000 years ago? Our scientists say that there was no society like that then. Even scientists can't have it both ways.

Answer 6

Listen to the sources you believe are presenting the facts, and trust yourself.

As far as I'm concerned, there is a preponderance of evidence to suggest that "global warming," whatever its effects, is real, and man is certainly accelerating the changes, and can therefore have a beneficial effect on slowing them.

However, that's not to say that "global warming" does not involve a natural cycle of warming/cooling that Earth goes through. The question for me is, how greatly have we impacted that cycle, and how can we adjust it (now) to a more regulated cycle.

---------------

It appears that, if I had simply mimicked your disdain for a political party, I might have met with greater approval. How sad, that such an issue which affects every one of us, has become a partisan football.

Answer 7

As an engineer working in "science", research and development - materials and processes, I can categorically state that Global Warming is not a fact.

Global Warming is a reasonable theory weakly supported by minimal and controversial evidence.

Looking at the scattering of data for the tiny amount of time that we have on global climate it is impossible to make reasonably accurate short term predictions (weather) let alone make long term predictions.

The evidence for this is really easy to assemble. Review long term, over four days, weather predictions for your area. Write down the 5-10 day predictions on a daily basis. Note how often they change. You will find that as time increases the accuracy of the prediction decreases.

That said, it is reasonable to take precautions and actions against the possibility that future pollution will cause problems.

The biggest polluter in the world is currently China, not the United States in spite of popular propaganda.

If you want to protect the world lobby for China, and all other industrialized nations, to be held to the same environmental standards.

And take the stupid pedal reflectors off of any bicycle you have. Those broken stupid reflectors end up all over and most of them do not get cleaned up.

Answer 8

Trust scientists but varify. It's all such a big money game. Gore winning Nobel Prize was BS. Hope we get back to Scientific Method, an leave payoff proven propgandia. ScientificRealilty is out there somewhere finding it is dam hard today.

Answer 9

you trust the "trained" scientists who 30 years ago claimed the excess so called greenhouse gasses were causing a new ice age. of course when the glaciers didn't show up they changed their story and claimed the earth was going to heat up. in both cases these "trained" scientists were motivated by government funding. money drives these "trained" scientists not good science.

Answer 10

I trust scientists who can answer these questions:

1 - What percentage of current climate change is attributable to man-made factors, and what percentage is attributable to random variation of the sun?

2 - Why is warming occurring on Mars?

3 - Why will the coders of global climate models not release their computer code?

4 - How are temperatures pre-1700 validated?

5 - Why do global climate models predict future warming, even when *RANDOM* values are input for past temperature?

If you can answer those simple...scientific...questions, then the theory of man as a primary cause of climate change will have stood up to scrutiny. That, after all, is science, right...reproducible results that stand up to scrutiny?

Answer 11

What if the real trained scientist is a Republican, can he be trusted? LOL

Medication is created by science too, you might want to think about that.