Do Republicans think that they know more about science than scientists?

Question

I see it on here a lot... a conservatives posting some cite that has some "anti-global" warming points... often very basic science points like "the earth has been warmer in the past"

while much of this is technically true, and there may be some other theories for global warming....

most scientists are WELL aware of these... and yes most still believe in man-made global warming... based on the research?

Do Republicans really think that they are bringing up points scientists "never thought of" or "don't understand"?

... first off... I'm talking about scientists... not Gore... so, let's stay focused...

second, every planet is different and has it's own issues... some warming, some not... so that means nothing... unless EVERY PLANET in the system is experiencing the EXACT same warming... then that may signal something and I think we would have heard of that...

again, scientists are aware of that, yet most still think it's man made...

from what I understand... global cooling never was a consensus... it was more of a "fad" put out by a few radical scientists...

now science isn't always right... but it definately beats the spread more than it doesn't...

so... one person gives a speech... and magically global warming isn't true?

impressive...

is there any "money trail" for scientists that say it's "not true"?

in fact, I would be willing to bet, that you could EASILY make more money trying to disprove it than prove it...

so... what was that about the money trail again?

if you doubt the consensus... then I would say...

"wake up and pay attention"

but for maybe the closest thing to actual proof may be this question...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=An0a5cD7sBMezFgIophJwV7sy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071013190524AAnz28D

who's surpressing them?

I've read a few stories about them?

wierd?

Answer 1

The Republican propaganda machine may have finally overplayed its hand on this one. Getting the Great Unwashed to agree with lies is not always victory.

Last summer a friend of mine who doesn't like to lose arguments said she was driving south. I pointed ahead at the setting sun and said "Robin, that is west." She tried hard to argue with that. I said, "Please do not argue with the sun." And she gave in gracefully.

Republicans are arguing gracelessly against logic on this issue. And it is a losing argument. Human accelerated global warming is a fact accepted by every advanced nation in the world, except the US and China. Opponents ask for more proof, but many still believe the universe is 6000 years old and evolution is a pack of lies. What do scientists know?

Their electricity, their computer, their cellphone, their entire standard of living exists because of science, but they cannot show any respect for it. They point to the errors of science without acknowledging that it corrects itself at every opportunity, and its track record does nothing but improve.

Conservatives are staking their credibility on their Flat Earth Society claim that the world can support an infinite number of people without stress on the environment. Let them.

They are ignorant, and immune to proof. It's a type of collective insanity.

Answer 2

Your knowledge of the money trail is limited at best. Virtually every study about global warming has been funded by a grant from a company, government, or other entity that has something to gain from widespread acceptance of global warming. Companies that cannot compete today want to level the playing field by introducing the green issue. Many companies are already speculating on carbon credits. All of this economic activity surrounding carbon credits should send off alarms in your mind.

Also, look at the history of the environmental movement. It has always targeted big oil, automakers, and capitalist societies--long before global warming was an issue. Environmentalism is a disguise--a kindly, sweet disguise--for the same marxist ideology that has been discredited in other areas. If that were not the case, environmentalists would be decrying Third World slash-and-burn farming, deforestation in poor countries, and natural disasters like volcanoes and wildfires. But they don't. They target the First World. Again, ask yourself why.

It does not matter how many scientists believe a hypothesis is valid. What matters is if the hypothesis is valid. A consensus is interesting, but it proves nothing. There are sound scientific reasons for doubting the consensus on global warming. It's funny that people who consider Republicans narrowminded are the ones who simply won't tolerate debate about global warming. What are you afraid of?

Answer 3

I'll never forget when I was gong thru a divorce in San Antonio in 80s and it snowed a foot and a half the day I moved into a hotel. I remembered what they said about the coming ice age and new it was happening. Before that THERE HAD NEVER BEEN OVER AN INCH OF SNOW IN RECORDED HISTORY! And that recorded history went way back about 100 years. This year had to turn on the heat to stay warm in July when normally it's 90. So maybe the ice age is coming back first. Could this be like the stem cell stuff, that adult stem cells can be used for 25 things.

Give it a few years before you freak. They have had heat waves in the past, just look at the 1500s. just think, if Ross had ot run, then Bush 1 would have been elected and then his vp would have gotten the nod. By the way Ross got this...NAFTA on his land and his son runs it, pretty good deal.

Answer 4

No, I don't think I know more than scientists. In fact until lately, I was believing in global warming, but now I find that there are actually quite a few scientists and science students that say they see inaccuracies in global warming theories. All I have said on details of my question was read the article and give proof where it's wrong.

Answer 5

Just follow the money trail. The liberal scientists who claim that man is responsible for global warming are depending on increased funding to keep them employed, just like Al Gore needs to be in the spotlight because of his failed attempt at the presidency. Many well-recognized scientists are debunking the liberal ideas of man-caused global warming. History proves that the planet has gone through cycles of warming and cooling. The warming stages of centuries ago that melted the ice happened without the use of car engines or jet planes that Al Gore uses.

Answer 6

All of those who firmly believe in man made Global warming are idiots. Scientists can't tell you what the temp is going to be next week much less in a hundred years. There are just as many scientists who are screaming this is nonsense but the left wing media publicly refuse to show it. 30 years ago scientists said an ice age was coming. Scientists get paid to produce bad news. Why was there no global warming when Al Gore was VP? I guess slick Willy did it. To the moron above The reason the fires were record breaking is all of the environuts not allowing any natural land to be disturbed. controlled burns remove the fuel and prevent major fires. And that area of California is semi desert. And non native plants and grasses are planted and grow where fires are likely to happen. Fires are natural. We try to prevent them because they destroy what man has made.

Answer 7

I am still waiting for the ice age all of the scientists predicted in the 70's. You know when they had a scientific consensus amongst all those in the know.

Oh you don't remember that about the imminent Ice Age. Heres some links to help.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/993807/posts

How about this. When my weatherman (another climate scientist) can get my weekly forcast dead on a week ahead of time, I may start taking what these scientists say about natural global and solar system wide cycles about the temperatures here on Earth a bit more seriously.

*Edit1*

Read the links, one was in Time magazine, the other was from Newsweek a year later. Two respectable sources.

*EDIT2*

This is specifically for mrlebows.....

You want to know why your fires in California were so bad? That had nothing to do with global warming. The reasons the fires were so bad was because of improper land management.

The state and some federal departments (led on by the greenies) will not allow people to clear the land of all that brush. Wooded areas have way too many trees for the acreage they are on (yes you can have too many trees in an area and have it pose a risk) and you basically have no clue about how to manage a forest.

Californias environmental policies will be the downfall of that state, and they are a large part of the reason I left there.

Answer 8

Do democrats think they know more than economics than economists?

If someone is an esteemed scientist, and spends their entire career proving global warming, it does NOT make them qualified to dictate the world's response. It makes their opinions valid input, but should not be the ONLY input. Tradeoffs must always be considered.

It's not that we deny the earth is warming, though some do. The point is, what do we do about it? Consider George Will's "Inconvenient Price":

http://www.newsweek.com/id/43352/output/print

Answer 9

This was given as part of a speech in the senate two days ago....

We are currently witnessing an international awakening of scientists who are speaking out in opposition to former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, the Hollywood elitists and the media-driven "consensus" on man-made global warming.

We have witnessed Antarctic ice GROW to record levels since satellite monitoring began in the 1970's. We have witnessed NASA temperature data errors that have made 1934 -- not 1998 -- the hottest year on record in the U.S. We have seen global averages temperatures flat line since 1998 and the Southern Hemisphere cool in recent years.

These new developments in just the last six months are but a sample of the new information coming out that continues to debunk climate alarm.

Answer 10

I don't see how anyone with a brain would not figure that 6 billion people living in a closed environment like earth are not effecting the weather.
Another thing. Most of these people who asked for scientific proof are Christians who have a firm belief in an entity in which there is no scientific proof of its existence. They believe in God but won't put two and two together when it comes to earth science.
Here's another point. Since mankind first walked the planet, everybody knew thru common sense that having sex created babies. Science couldn't prove that as fact until the turn of the 20th century.
Are we to wait 10,000 years for science to prove what it only takes common sense to figure out?