It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Why I don't believe "climate change" experts

page: 2
33
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: amazing
My problem is this.

If we don't believe the vast majority of scientists and scientific organizations and associations on Climate change/Global Warming, then why should we believe them on vaccinations, evolution, gravity, Astronomy, general medical care, biology etc. Can we really cherry pick what we believe?


Because scientists and "experts" cherry pick the subjects and the results.


edit on Mar-05-2015 by xuenchen because: [__;;; ... --- ... ;;;__]


I don't think so. I mean take gravity. When have the scientists cherry picked the results of all of that science?




posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 05:28 PM
link   
what amazes me is scientists have shown they can not be trusted through the years and make fun of those who don't trust them. the have basically lost public trust but instead of trying to earn the trust back they go the arrogant condescending jerk off route and tell everyone else they are stupid.

Nice PR campaign they have going LOL. when they start releasing technology for the sake of science instead of getting patents and selling technology to corporations the hide it away while lining their own pockets then I might listen to them a bit more. as it stands now i trust them as much as politicians and actors flying around first class or on private jets funded by taxpayers screaming the climate is changing.

people need to clean the trash out of there front yards before they worry about climate change. maybe start drinking out of glass bottles again. go back to making products that actually last and can be fix instead of everything being throw away. I would say all the trash is a bigger mounting problem than climate change. Funny how big trash cans are these days compared to 20 years ago.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 05:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: amazing
My problem is this.

If we don't believe the vast majority of scientists and scientific organizations and associations on Climate change/Global Warming, then why should we believe them on vaccinations, evolution, gravity, Astronomy, general medical care, biology etc. Can we really cherry pick what we believe?


Because scientists and "experts" cherry pick the subjects and the results.


edit on Mar-05-2015 by xuenchen because: [__;;; ... --- ... ;;;__]


I don't think so. I mean take gravity. When have the scientists cherry picked the results of all of that science?


See what I mean?



How 'bout methane and global warming?




posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: amazing
My problem is this.

If we don't believe the vast majority of scientists and scientific organizations and associations on Climate change/Global Warming, then why should we believe them on vaccinations, evolution, gravity, Astronomy, general medical care, biology etc. Can we really cherry pick what we believe?


What are we if we don't questions "the experts"
way too often what the experts say is true today is false tomorrow
or as in the case of climate change
exactly the opposite.

Everyone should always question and think for themselves.

No leaps or scientific advances were ever make by accepting
what the experts say and not challenging the status quo.

If you want to accept everything the experts say as the gospel truth
then you are doomed to be a sheeple your entire life.


I still think we should question, I'm with you there. But do we question evolution any longer or the theory of gravity? Do we believe in vaccinations in most cases? There is some really good science going on in regards to global warming.


This thread is not about gravity or vaccinations.

It is about thinking for yourself
and not accepting "science"
that has clearly gone from
one extreme to the exact opposite
as far as the "experts" are concerned
which is what has happened with global warming


But when thinking for ourselves, it's important to really understand if we should trust scientists and by bringing up other valid theories and other science like with vaccinations and gravity it will help us see if we really should trust these scientists.

Were they right about vaccinations?
Were they right about gravity?
Were they right about evolution?
Were they right about global warming?

I also don't see where all the experts say that we are in the exact opposite of global warming. Do all the experts say that now?



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: grandmakdw

No you should look at the evidence but when the evidence all points towards climate change and that we have a hand in it should we just dismiss it all?.
What about using your god given mind to study the info and when and If you have done that question the results not the actual scientists.
To me the deniers just don't want any change in their lives and are unwilling to look past their own life towards the lives of the future generations.

Personally I think we are fecked....we didn't do enough.


In the 1960's and 1970's very prominent and well respected scientists
had lots of very good evidence that they said
pointed to a coming ice age.

Just because someone doesn't believe in global warming
doesn't automatically make them anti-enviornmentalists
or anti-clean water or anti-clean air.
Much has been done to make the world healthier.
There is still much work yet to be done to make the world healthier for humans and animals.
That has absolutely nothing, nada, zip, nothing at all to do with climate change.
One can be for the environment and cleaning it up
and be a "climate change denier"
the two are not bound together in thought.

It is the believers who have tied these two issues together
to try and shame people who question the climate change meme.
That is part of the climate change mythology, that the two are inseparable.
They are not.
One can be for cleaning up the environment for the good of all
AND not believe in global warming.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

I think whatever evidence I showed you wouldn't be enough...your mind is made up.
Goodday.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

Cool... er cold. But what did the scientists of the day say despite the media? Did they agree? Nope. So you can choose to believe a report that Walter Cronkite delivered was the only climate science voice, the only standpoint or you can choose to deny ignorance.


However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.

In the 1970s, the most comprehensive study on climate change (and the closest thing to a scientific consensus at the time) was the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report. Their basic conclusion was "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…"

This is in strong contrast with the current position of the US National Academy of Sciences: "...there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring... It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action." This is in a joint statement with the Academies of Science from Brazil, France, Canada, China, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom.

In contrast to the 1970s, there are now a number of scientific bodies that have released statements affirming man-made global warming. More on scientific consensus...

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Environmental Protection Agency
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
American Meteorological Society
The Royal Society of the UK
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
American Association for the Advancement of Science

Reasoning Behind Cooling Predictions

Quite often, the justification for the few global cooling predictions in the 1970s is overlooked. Probably the most famous such prediction was Rasool and Schneider (1971):

"An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5°K."

Yes, their global cooling projection was based on a quadrupling of atmospheric aerosol concentration. This wasn't an entirely unrealistic scenario - after all, sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions were accelerating quite rapidly up until the early 1970s (Figure 2). These emissions caused various environmental problems, and as a result, a number of countries, including the USA, enacted SO2 limits through Clean Air Acts. As a result, not only did atmospheric aerosol concentrations not quadruple, they declined starting in the late 1970s:


Skeptical Science



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

Please refrain from trying to get the thread off topic. I will not respond to off topic questions no matter how hard you dog me on them.

Please read my earlier post regarding the "hard and true" science of the coming global ice age.

There are many issues where science has changed its mind.

At one time salt was said to be really bad for you and that one had to rid oneself diet of all salt
Now we know that if one doesn't get enough salt, heart attacks happen due to a chemical imbalance caused by lack of salt, and brain issues also occur as the chemicals that make the brain "work" are thrown into imbalance from a lack of adequate salt intake.




edit on 6Thu, 05 Mar 2015 18:33:03 -0600pm30503pmk054 by grandmakdw because: spelling oy vey



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

No. They don't. Pundits and weathermen with grandiosity issues, cherry pick the data and tie it into ideology and denier idiots eat it up. If liberals buy into it, it must be a hoax to get our tax dollars, right?



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing
Can we really cherry pick what we believe?

Of course. That's called critical thinking. You start with the assumption that everybody is lying to you because they have their own agendas. Then you look at what they're saying, as well as what their opponents are saying (there are always opponents). You weigh the evidence for both sides, and then pick a side. And the best part is, if the other side comes up with better evidence, you can switch sides! You're not penalized for it.

I've just come off a horrible six months where my doctor tried a number of cholesterol medications on me to bring my numbers down. I had horrific inflammation in my legs and back that incapacitated me. Should I just continue to take the medication because my doctor, an "expert" in health, says I should? The answer... is no.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Many of us are old enough to remember the alarmist memes back in the day.

Even Spock himself warned us of a possible impending doom of another ice age around the corner:




posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw
a reply to: amazing

Please refrain from trying to get the thread off topic. I will not respond to off topic questions no matter how hard you dog me on them.

Please read my earlier post regarding the "hard and true" science of the coming global ice age.

There are many issues where science has changed its mind.

At one time salt was said to be really bad for you and that one had to rids one diet of all salt
Now we know that if one doesn't get enough salt, heart attacks happen due to a chemical imbalance caused by lack of salt, and brain issues also occur as the chemicals that make the brain "work" are thrown into imbalance from a lack of adequate salt intake.



NOt trying to derail. I think it's a valid point to relate global warming to gravity or evolution or vaccines. Most scientists in the world, most of them, think man made global warming is a real, valid theory, just like most scientists say vaccinations are important science, they also feel the same way about gravity and evolution.

Since most scientists agree on it, and overall, I believe them when they talk about evolution and gravity, why shouldn't I believe them when it comes to man made global warming?

You, of course, don't need to reply to me, I'm just saying that when most of the scientists in the world still tell me global warming is happening, I don't think global cooling is hard and settled and true science. Maybe it will be some day, but for now, I'm planning to move somewhere cooler, I have solar panels on my house, but I'll keep reading articles as they come out.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw
As an American citizen I realize the government lies to us any time it's convent for them. What is a member to do?



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 06:14 PM
link   
It is a hoax. Its all a big fat hoax to screw us all from a new position. Kiss my A$$ Al Gore! Big fat liar!



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to:
grandmakdw

en.m.wikipedia.org...

The URL above, will show you several things.

First, is the graph most commonly trumpeted by the scientific community, for it is information showing the gradual upward trend in global climate over the last 100+ years (since 1880).

Secondly, if you scroll down to the 800,000 year ice core tab, it will show the constant, cyclical pattern the earth has gone through, for the last [near] millennium.

Comparing the two, one can come to the conclusion that the miniscule sample of 135 years is used predominately, due to its "shock" value.
edit on 5-3-2015 by dothedew because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: amazing
My problem is this.

If we don't believe the vast majority of scientists and scientific organizations and associations on Climate change/Global Warming, then why should we believe them on vaccinations, evolution, gravity, Astronomy, general medical care, biology etc. Can we really cherry pick what we believe?


What are we if we don't questions "the experts"
way too often what the experts say is true today is false tomorrow
or as in the case of climate change
exactly the opposite.

Everyone should always question and think for themselves.

No leaps or scientific advances were ever make by accepting
what the experts say and not challenging the status quo.

If you want to accept everything the experts say as the gospel truth
then you are doomed to be a sheeple your entire life.


I still think we should question, I'm with you there. But do we question evolution any longer or the theory of gravity? Do we believe in vaccinations in most cases? There is some really good science going on in regards to global warming.
Yeah evolution is a pretty good one to question. Have you ever really look at that? Have you ever really tried to determine how this vast specialization of species occurred?

I look in my reef tank every day and wonder how or why evolution caused all my fish to appear differently with different colors, shapes, diets, etc, yet they all come from the same exact environment with the same parameters of light, heat, food supplies, etc. Is that how evolution works? Me, I thought these traits my fish have were the product of necessity, and if we're to believe evolution, well then they all should have evolved to look the same. If they all come from the same environment, why do they have different traits? Has any scientist ever asked or answered those questions?

I'm no creationist, but I also don't believe every species on Earth crawled out of the same slime and "evolved" into the myriad of species that are and/or have been on this planet. Sorry, that just doesn't make any sense. It's also never been proven.
edit on 06635Thursdayk22 by Bilk22 because: (no reason given)

edit on 06736Thursdayk22 by Bilk22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Bilk22

I think a science class or seven may help you at least get the basics....



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Trust no one???

a reply to: amazing



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Bilk22

I think a science class or seven may help you at least get the basics....


Instead of making a snide remark, how about answering my questions. I think, keeping about 60 live corals and about 20 different species of fish, I have a pretty good idea about science and biology - well enough to keep them alive and thriving. So with your vast scientific and biological background, please explain how this all works.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: grandmakdw

Cool... er cold. But what did the scientists of the day say despite the media? Did they agree? Nope. So you can choose to believe a report that Walter Cronkite delivered was the only climate science voice, the only standpoint or you can choose to deny ignorance.


However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.

In the 1970s, the most comprehensive study on climate change (and the closest thing to a scientific consensus at the time) was the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report. Their basic conclusion was "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…"

This is in strong contrast with the current position of the US National Academy of Sciences: "...there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring... It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action." This is in a joint statement with the Academies of Science from Brazil, France, Canada, China, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom.

In contrast to the 1970s, there are now a number of scientific bodies that have released statements affirming man-made global warming. More on scientific consensus...

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Environmental Protection Agency
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
American Meteorological Society
The Royal Society of the UK
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
American Association for the Advancement of Science

Reasoning Behind Cooling Predictions

Quite often, the justification for the few global cooling predictions in the 1970s is overlooked. Probably the most famous such prediction was Rasool and Schneider (1971):

"An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5°K."

Yes, their global cooling projection was based on a quadrupling of atmospheric aerosol concentration. This wasn't an entirely unrealistic scenario - after all, sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions were accelerating quite rapidly up until the early 1970s (Figure 2). These emissions caused various environmental problems, and as a result, a number of countries, including the USA, enacted SO2 limits through Clean Air Acts. As a result, not only did atmospheric aerosol concentrations not quadruple, they declined starting in the late 1970s:


Skeptical Science


What about the recent scientists reversal back to the ice age prediction?
russia-ic.com...

Walter Cronkite didn't just make up the report. It was what they taught me in school and was in Time magazine and all over the news in the 60's and 70's. You are just too young to know that it was "the scientific truth" in those days.

Well, if I agree with you, then
all we have to do to stop global warming
is to increase aerosol concentrations
and bring back all aerosol formulations we used in the 60's and 70's
and especially Hydrochlorofluorocarbons
if all the scientists you quote are correct
that is all we'd need to do to reverse global warming
just bring back my old style hair spray



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join