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.

 

Climate-Change Science - - Whom to trust ?

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 05:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: Nothin

When it comes to science it's best to trust the majority consensus.


Hi STS.

All hail ! The Majority Consensus™ !!


Yes, science is awesome.




posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Nothin

Whom to trust?

I think a better way to figure out the truth would be to identify first 'who not to trust'.

Don't trust: big oil, politicians who want to tax carbon (or tax anything else!), scientists who have their research grants paid for by others, and speakers who get paid to give certain viewpoints (including the MSM who are paid to advertise).

That doesn't leave behind many trustworthy sources at all, IMHO.

I look for small, ad hoc climate organizations such as Suspicious0bservers ( suspicious0bservers.org... ), as some of the leading trustworthy sources.



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Hi Nothin, you pose an interesting question here but all I can say is "plant a tree then hug a tree". How can it hurt?
edit on 110CDT01America/Chicago02510131 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: EvilAxis

originally posted by: Nothin
Hi EA.
Thanks for the vid, but it didn't convince me.

Is that what is deemed a 'call to authority' ?


It is.
But the way to differentiate between a legitimate and a fallacious appeal to authority is by evaluating the nature and strength of the authority. On complex matters requiring specialist training and knowledge it's rational to consult experts.

Despite a very high degree of consensus and certainty (see video), they could be wrong. Or they could be deliberately misleading us.

What motive do diverse groups of climatologists from different countries working under no single controlling authority have for engaging in a joint global conspiracy to deceive?


How 'rational' is it, to trust organizations that have been repeatedly wrong in their predictions ?
Even though they have made dire predictions, that have never come to pass, we should still trust them ?

Did you see the post by 727Sky, and the vid and link ?



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: scraedtosleep

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: Nothin

When it comes to science it's best to trust the majority consensus.


Hi STS.

All hail ! The Majority Consensus™ !!


Yes, science is awesome.


Yeah. As a concept, as an ideal: Science is awesome.

Big Science: not so much...



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 08:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fowlerstoad
a reply to: Nothin

Whom to trust?

I think a better way to figure out the truth would be to identify first 'who not to trust'.

Don't trust: big oil, politicians who want to tax carbon (or tax anything else!), scientists who have their research grants paid for by others, and speakers who get paid to give certain viewpoints (including the MSM who are paid to advertise).

That doesn't leave behind many trustworthy sources at all, IMHO.

I look for small, ad hoc climate organizations such as Suspicious0bservers ( suspicious0bservers.org... ), as some of the leading trustworthy sources.


Hi FT.
Thanks for your post, and that link.

Agreed on not trusting the so-called 'authorities' .

Here is a vid from that site, questioning the validity of the CC/GW/AGW models:




Just to be clear: am trusting the websites on this link, and previous ones, any more than the so-called 'authorities' .
But am grateful to have alternate views and information at the table.



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight
Hi Nothin, you pose an interesting question here but all I can say is "plant a tree then hug a tree". How can it hurt?


Hi ITL.
Thanks for visiting our humble thread !

Agree that logging companies should be required to replant where they cut.
As for internationally, like the Amazon: we can't influence the local government, so perhaps some kind of remedial planting programs could be looked-at.

Absolutely love hugging trees !
Whenever a question is asked: the answer is always; "Patience"... LoL !



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Fowlerstoad




I look for small, ad hoc climate organizations such as Suspicious0bservers

I wouldn't. That is not an ad hoc climate organization. It is Ben Davidson, who has an economics degree and a youtube channel. Oh, and a law degree. Not a lot of science there, large or small.
kernelmag.dailydot.com...

He produces nonsense. Like this:


And this:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 10/1/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2019 @ 07:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jay-morris
a reply to: turbonium1

So are you saying there is absolutly no evidence that we are causing climate change? No evidence at all?



There is no evidence of climate change, that's what the records prove. It has nothing to do with my opinion. It is a fact.

Evidence is all that matters here. Nothing else.



posted on Oct, 4 2019 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1




There is no evidence of climate change, that's what the records prove.

Climate is as it always has been.
The Earth is flat.
Gravity does not exist.



posted on Oct, 4 2019 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: Jay-morris
a reply to: turbonium1

So are you saying there is absolutly no evidence that we are causing climate change? No evidence at all?



It is really hard to convince someone of global warming when they think the earth is flat and gravity doesn't exist.


Sorry that evidence matters to me, instead of what 'experts' claim is true!!



posted on Oct, 4 2019 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: Jay-morris
a reply to: turbonium1

So are you saying there is absolutly no evidence that we are causing climate change? No evidence at all?



It is really hard to convince someone of global warming when they think the earth is flat and gravity doesn't exist.


Sorry that evidence matters to me, instead of what 'experts' claim is true!!


What evidence? Please post your sources so we can look it over.



posted on Oct, 4 2019 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: Jay-morris
a reply to: turbonium1

So are you saying there is absolutly no evidence that we are causing climate change? No evidence at all?



It is really hard to convince someone of global warming when they think the earth is flat and gravity doesn't exist.


Sorry that evidence matters to me, instead of what 'experts' claim is true!!


What evidence? Please post your sources so we can look it over.


What city do you live in, or what state, and then, we'll take a look at the historical data of temperatures, around there...

I'll wait for your reply, so please go ahead..



posted on Oct, 5 2019 @ 06:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nothin
How is Joe-Public supposed to be able to tell, whom the "right" scientist is, and whom the "wrong" scientist is ?




It's no different really to when you need brain surgery, which is the right doctor to trust? The brain surgeon or the podiatrist?


(Remembering that 99% of scientists are experts in something which has nothing to do with climatology and have no reason to know any more about the subject than a rather dim witted politician whose best mates are all oil and coal magnates)



posted on Oct, 6 2019 @ 12:26 AM
link   
a reply to: AndyMayhew

Hi AM.
So: we just rely on the credentials then, and nothing else ?
The track-record doesn't matter ?
A whole bunch of other factors: don't matter ?

The difference with your example is: that you don't know that you need brain-surgery, until the brain-surgeon tells you that you do.

What if he is a lousy surgeon ?
What if he is one of those surgeons that have been accused of performing unnecessary surgeries ?

Have you seen what happens, when a pro-sports team is told that their multi-million dollar asset needs surgery ?
That's right: they get a second, and sometimes a third opinion.
Perhaps you would counsel them to just accept the first prognosis ?

Another problem: is that they don't operate on you, for possible future brain-tumours.
They're making us pay now, for a supposed future problem.
And nobody has a very convincing argument for why.

Did you not see the link posted here, that showed all of the dire predictions from NASA/NOAA ?
How 'rational' is it, to trust organizations that have been repeatedly wrong in their predictions ?
Have you not heard of the 'muzzling' of government scientists ?

CBC: It's official — the Harper government muzzled scientists. Some say it's still happening

CBC: More than half of federal government scientists still feel muzzled, poll finds

Smithsonian: Canadian Scientists Explain Exactly How Their Government Silenced Science


Sorry, but there are just so many blind calls to authority in this thread.
Starting to wonder if the actual critical-thinkers on this site are being massively driven-out by 'believers' .



posted on Oct, 6 2019 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1




What city do you live in, or what state, and then, we'll take a look at the historical data of temperatures, around there...

I'll wait for your reply, so please go ahead..


You should know better.
That's a no no. A big one.


ii) You will not Post, use the chat feature, use videos, or use the private message system to collect or ask for the personal information (data mining) about forum members, including email addresses and "real life" names, in any manner whatsoever, or for any reason whatsoever.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 10/6/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2019 @ 03:57 AM
link   
It can be any city at all, that's the point, in case you really didn't know that.

Pick any city, or region, in the world, it doesn't matter which one.

Look at the historical records of temperatures in that city, or region.


What you will find is that the temperatures have remained the same over that period of time, say 100 years or so. One year is hotter than average, another year cooled than average, and so on. Same as months of hotter or cooler than average temperatures are found over the years.

By this point, you might see that we have AVERAGE temperatures for each region, right?

These are average temperatures of each region on Earth, based on over a century of recorded temperatures. We know our 'average' temperatures are a constant, used to assess any other temperatures as 'colder/warmer than average'.


That's real evidence, not a made up statistic/chart which cherry-picks various temperatures to try and claim that this proves 'climate change' is real. Use your brain, and look at the actual records, instead of buying their bs. Once you do, you'll see how it's all bs, too. And maybe start using your brain to look at the real evidence, all the time, instead of blindly believing all their other lies, which they've told us for centuries now.




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join