It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Poll: New Hampshire Tea Partiers don't trust scientists

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in


posted on May, 22 2014 @ 06:31 AM

originally posted by: robobbob
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
scientists and learned men for decades swore that smoking was safe
scientists and learned men swear that GMOs are safe
scientists and learned men felt open air nuke testing was safe.
scientists and learned men told everyone thalidomide was safe.
scientists and learned men felt it acceptable to infect humans with various diseases such as syphilis and observe the effects instead of treating
scientists and learned men felt that measuring skull size and topography were grounds for racial persecution

science is one of the most powerful tool in humankinds possession. However, it is conducted by human beings. Subject to personal bias, jealousy, and yes greed.
So when scientists whos funding, career advancement, and self worth is tied to validating a particular theory, don't be in too big a rush to just believe them.
The "elite" and big corporations that leftists and OWS types claim to distrust and hate, are poised to make fortunes that will make oil look like small change, and crush individual freedoms....provided that the world accepts their climate change agenda. How is it that a there are already hundreds of BILLIONS tied up in carbon exchange programs all based on a theory not already proven? Not a formula for cold, dispassionate, and unbiased study and analysis.

Mankind had never been infallible. Well said, a lot of people get upset when told that very thing, because all think they are perfect and have perfect knowledge.

posted on May, 22 2014 @ 07:10 AM

originally posted by: buster2010
Not a real shocker. These are people who scream keep your government hands off our Medicare. If they are not bright enough to know that their Medicare comes from the government then why would they trust scientists.

If the uneducated and ignorant masses were all Tea Party members then 80% of America would be of that party and Obama would not be in office today. Nor would all the people who voted for Obama because they thought he would buy them a house have their Obama house today either, wait they didn't get a house.... shocker....

BTW you can thank old Al Gore for any distrust in climate change scientists. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

edit on 22-5-2014 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 22 2014 @ 08:03 AM

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis

Most scientists (as in - MOST) agree - and so to disagree with most of them is to disagree with scientists - in general

Their title is correct - at least according to their figures. Which I admit - I can't prove or disprove. It's not journalism at it's worst - unless you can prove they screwed with the poll

Can you?


Most can agree that when a cow farts it has an affect on the climate too. I guess that is really the issue here as to how much of an affect man has on it. The question is whether it is negligible or Al Gore's +10 degrees in 20 years scenario. Also do you kind of think it is strange and maybe a little distrustful that this all has been morphed from global warming to a very generic title of climate change, so just what is climate change...sound a little too open ended that can describe anything and everything the climate does.

posted on May, 22 2014 @ 10:47 AM
I no longer trust scientists for the same reason I don't trust the msm. They're all owned by corporate interests. If you don't believe that's true, you're a sucker.

posted on May, 22 2014 @ 04:33 PM
I wonder what these folks will think when miami has canals instead of roads

posted on May, 22 2014 @ 04:35 PM
a reply to: Xtrozero

climate change is, well climate change..

personally I think that its part of a natual cycle, however human have accellerated said cycle.

posted on May, 22 2014 @ 04:43 PM
a reply to: FlyersFan


Let’s be clear: No one probably wishes more than climate scientists that global warming wasn’t true. If someone was able to prove conclusively tomorrow that all the models of climate change were wrong and we aren’t experiencing manmade global warming, climate scientists would throw the biggest party imaginable, ecstatic that their fears of doom and gloom turned out to be illusions. Unfortunately for them and for all of us, global warming is happening, whether we believe it or not.

It is not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact.

posted on May, 22 2014 @ 06:56 PM
Come on then somebody show me some hard evidence that mankind has had any effect on the climate of this planet. Please, I'll switch over to your side as soon as anyone can show any hard evidence.

I'm all for improving the environment, I spend more than half my life outside, I leave things better than I found em. I hunt, fish, and golf. I'm right there with anyone that things need to change, but this whole climate change thing is a scam to put money in certain peoples pockets.

posted on May, 22 2014 @ 08:29 PM
a reply to: EverydayInVA

Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change, Nature 453, 353-357 (15 May 2008)

Significant changes in physical and biological systems are occurring on all continents and in most oceans, with a concentration of available data in Europe and North America. Most of these changes are in the direction expected with warming temperature. Here we show that these changes in natural systems since at least 1970 are occurring in regions of observed temperature increases, and that these temperature increases at continental scales cannot be explained by natural climate variations alone.

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Science 3 December 2004

In this Essay, Oreskes analyzes the existing scientific literature to show that there is a robust consensus that anthropogenic global climate change is occurring.

Detection of Anthropogenic Climate Change in the World's Oceans, Science 13 April 2001

Further, the chances of either the anthropogenic or observed signals being produced by the PCM as a result of natural, internal forcing alone are less than 5%.

For more immediate effects that humans have on the Earth I can refer you to ozone depletion caused by CFC's:

Stratospheric Ozone Destruction by Man-Made Chlorofluoromethanes, Science 27 September 1974

Calculations indicate that chlorofluoromethanes produced by man can greatly affect the concentrations of stratospheric ozone in future decades.

Changes in Stratospheric Ozone, Science 3 July 1987

Human activities are projected to deplete substantially stratospheric ozone through anthropogenic increases in the global concentrations of key atmospheric chemicals. Human-induced perturbations may be occurring already.

I could've linked any number of news articles but I wanted to present the scientific papers instead. They tend to show more 'hard' evidence than news sites do. Does that help?
edit on 22-5-2014 by links234 because: Coding.

posted on May, 22 2014 @ 10:45 PM
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Worrying about anything doesn't real mean much. It becomes real when businesses stake their existence on adjusting costs to cover risk.

posted on May, 23 2014 @ 12:28 AM

somebody show me some hard evidence that mankind has had any effect on the climate of this planet

Look up Heat Islands. That's pretty damn convincing.

posted on May, 23 2014 @ 03:54 AM
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Humm, I wonder why there would be people who would say they are not trusting scientists?...

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research

Read more:

A BRITISH climate scientist at the centre of a controversy over leaked emails is facing fresh claims that he sought to hide problems in temperature data on which his work was based.

An investigation of more than 2000 emails apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations was seriously flawed.

Climate scientist Phil Jones and a collaborator have been accused of scientific fraud for attempting to suppress data that could cast doubt on a key 1990 study on the effect of cities on warming.

Dr Jones withheld the information requested under British freedom of information laws. Subsequently a senior colleague told him he feared that Dr Jones' collaborator, Wei-chyung Wang of the University at Albany, had
''screwed up''.

The apparent attempts to cover up problems with temperature data from the Chinese weather stations provide the first link between the email scandal and the UN's embattled climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a paper based on the measurements was used to bolster IPCC statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.

The IPCC has already been criticised for its use of information that had not been rigorously checked - in particular a false claim that all Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.

Of 105 freedom of information requests to the University of East Anglia over the climatic research unit, which Dr Jones led until the end of December, only 10 had been released in full.

In at least one of the emails they mention ways that they can use not to release information, and in one of the emails Jones himself jokes saying...:

....If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think Ill delete the file rather than send to anyone."

We Lost the Original Data

Steve McIntyre, of ClimateAudit, is a determined individual. While this may be no fun for those who fall under his focus and happen to have something to hide, more sunlight on climate science cannot be a bad thing.
Obviously, the ability to do good research depends upon good data with known provenance. At the time WMO Resolution 40 was widely hailed in the atmospheric sciences community as a major step forward in data sharing and availability in support of both operations and research.

Thus it is with some surprise to observe CRU going through bizarre contortions to avoid releasing its climate data to Steve McIntyre. They first told him that he couldn't have it because he was not an academic. I found this to be a petty reason for keeping data out of the hands of someone who clearly wants to examine it for scholarly purposes. So, wanting to test this theory I asked CRU for the data myself, being a "real" academic. I received a letter back from CRU stating that I couldn't have the data because "we do not hold the requested information."

I found that odd. How can they not hold the data when they are showing graphs of global temperatures on their webpage? However, it turns out that CRU has in response to requests for its data put up a new webpage with the following remarkable admission (emphasis added):

We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues.[b/ We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.

Say what?! CRU has lost track of the original data that it uses to create its global temperature record!? Can this be serious? So not only is it now impossible to replicate or reevaluate homogeneity adjustments made in the past -- which might be important to do as new information is learned about the spatial representativeness of siting, land use effects, and so on -- but it is now also impossible to create a new temperature index from scratch. CRU is basically saying, "trust us." So much for settling questions and resolving debates with empirical information (i.e., science).

ATS member burntheships actually posted a threat that is relevant to this topic of why more and more people are not trusting certain scientists.

BTW, the "facts" people hear from tv about AGW/Global Warming/Climate Change, or other propaganda media comes directly from scientists who back the claim of AGW, and what other scientists have to say is "not televised or advertised" as much. That is why there are a lot of people who "don't trust scientists on environmental issues"... Many such scientists have been caught time, after time, after time lying, hiding data, "erasing raw data" so that no one could verify their work and used other tactics such as doing all they can to shut down any other scientists who try to publish data that refutes the AGW claim...

But again, you get people who claim to be "more intelligent" try to continuously make this topic into political mud pit fights... I can see them right now thumping their chest proclaiming they are more intelligent because they believe "liars"...

edit on 23-5-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: add link

posted on May, 23 2014 @ 04:47 AM
If a person with a degree gets paid by someone with an agenda, is that person a scientist because they have a degree or an employee doing their job? Isn't it amazing when a group pays for something that the "scientist' findings are right in line with what the groups are.

The bigger question is, what does it say about people that they don't ask who funds stuff.

posted on May, 23 2014 @ 11:59 AM
57% of tea party members trusting scientists... that's very bad

to all those stupid people trusting scientists: it's just stupid to trust a scientist. Reputation should not go in the way of looking at the facts and applying logic.

posted on May, 23 2014 @ 12:43 PM

originally posted by: EverydayInVA
Come on then somebody show me some hard evidence that mankind has had any effect on the climate of this planet. Please, I'll switch over to your side as soon as anyone can show any hard evidence.

We put in the atmosphere over 100 times the combined sum of CO2 from all volcanoes in the world, annually.

We've been doing this for decades.

Is that hard enough for you?

posted on May, 23 2014 @ 01:04 PM
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The actions of one - do scale up to ALL.

posted on May, 23 2014 @ 01:06 PM
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
Mother Jones is a left wing rag more appropriately used to line the bottom of bird cages.

posted on May, 23 2014 @ 01:22 PM

originally posted by: JohnInFL
Mother Jones is a left wing rag more appropriately used to line the bottom of bird cages.

Likewise, Fox News is a right wing rag more appropriately ignored.

However, it's not always wrong - just like Mother Jones is not wrong in this case.

posted on May, 23 2014 @ 03:17 PM
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

There have been about 12,000 papers written on climate change. Of that 12,000 only 4,000 took a position on what was the cause. Of the 4,000, 97.1% suggested humans were the cause. That's 3,884 papers. You seem to have a problem with...what, two? So, because of 0.05% of all the scholarly papers written on the subject having false information you suggest we disregard the other 99.95%?

Is that preposterous to anyone else?

posted on May, 23 2014 @ 05:35 PM

originally posted by: Greven

We put in the atmosphere over 100 times the combined sum of CO2 from all volcanoes in the world, annually.

We've been doing this for decades.

Is that hard enough for you?

First of all you are exaggerating quite a bit, and you are not even taking into consideration underwater volcanoes which also emit CO2 into the atmosphere. There are millions of underwater volcanoes, and those are just the ones we have been able to find.

AGW scientists are claiming that the oceans cannot cope with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, despite the fact that in Earth past the atmosphere has had much higher levels of atmospheric CO2 and the oceans were coping with it. there was no "runaway global warming. Not to mention that these same scientists are not taking into consideration the CO2 being emitted by the over 3 million underwater volcanoes.

Thousand of new volcanoes revealed beneath the waves
10:04 09 July 2007 by Catherine Brahic
For similar stories, visit the Mysteries of the Deep Sea Topic Guide

The true extent to which the ocean bed is dotted with volcanoes has been revealed by researchers who have counted 201,055 underwater cones. This is over 10 times more than have been found before.

The team estimates that in total there could be about 3 million submarine volcanoes, 39,000 of which rise more than 1000 metres over the sea bed.

"The distribution of underwater volcanoes tells us something about what is happening in the centre of the Earth," says John Hillier of the University of Cambridge in the UK. That is because they give information about the flows of hot rock in the mantle beneath. "But the problem is that we cannot see through the water to count them," he says.

Satellites can detect volcanoes that are more than 1500 m high because the mass of the submerged mountains causes gravity to pull the water in around them. This creates domes on the ocean's surface that can be several metres high and can be detected from space.


Here is a photo where you can see some of the underwater volcanoes at the edges of Antarctica and around the world.

That's first... Second, there are several natural sources that emit CO2 into the atmosphere, and combined they put out more CO2 than mankind ever has, or ever could emit.

Nature emits more than 770 gt of CO2 yearly, and the amounts released by natural sources are not constant, at times it is higher and at times a bit smaller. The amount of CO2 released by man also changes year to year to about 26 gt. Many times the changes in natural emissions, from the baseline average of 770 gt, from year to year "surpasses what mankind emits yearly."

Then again it is being "assumed" by the AGW scientists that the "supposed" inability by the oceans to sequester/trap more atmospheric CO2 is because of mankind's activities when they are not taking in consideration the amounts of CO2 being released by the millions of underwater volcanoes.

Then there are these "inconvenient" facts. inconvenient to the AGW crowd of course who like to whitewash these facts among many others...

As a greenhouse gas, water vapor is 10 times more potent than carbon dioxide and its increase is a key factor in the rising global temperatures appearing in the models.

Apart from "water vapor" being 10 times more powerful than CO2, it exists at higher volume levels than CO2. Water vapor consists of about 1%-4% of atmospheric gases, while CO2 consists of about 0.036% -0.039% of atmospheric gases. So not only is water vapor 10 times more powerful than CO2, but it exists at higher levels on Earth's atmosphere.

Then there is the fact that Earth's Troposphere is the atmospheric layer that extents from the surface of the Earth up to 11 miles above the Earth's surface and in which most weather events occurs, as well as being the atmospheric layer that affect temperature on Earth's surface.

On this atmospheric layer WATER VAPOR contributes from 95% -98% of the greenhouse effect (depends on which scientist you ask, not the lies being perpetrated by the AGW scientists) and CO2 contributes around 5% of the greenhouse effect.

So "water vapor" is 10 times more powerful than CO2 molecule by molecule, it exists at higher levels on Earth's atmosphere, and it's contribution to the greenhouse effect on Earth is from 95% -98%... Yet it is whitewashed by the AGW scientists and their cultists. Of course that's because 99.999% of the water vapor that exists on Earth comes from "natural sources"... But the AGW scientists and their cultists can't have those "inconvenient" facts in the way can they?...

Given the present composition of the atmosphere, the contribution to the total heating rate in the troposphere is around 5 percent from carbon dioxide and around 95 percent from water vapor.

CO2 increases without positive water vapor feedback could only have been responsible for about 0.1-0.2oC of the 0.6-0.7oC global mean surface temperature warming that has been observed since the early 20th century. Assuming a doubling of CO2 by the late 21st century (assuming no positive water vapor feedback), we should likely expect to see no more than about 0.3-0.5oC global surface warming and certainly not the 2-5oC warming that has been projected by the GCMs.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in