1) They always cave in to politics (i.e. Nazi Germany, homosexuality defined as disorder)
2) They are people, so they aren%26#039;t perfect and these imperfect people invented and control science--so science can%26#039;t be perfect.
That being said. Without massive extinctions and catastrophic meteor impacts (none of which we would tolerate today) led to the world we know today, and ulitimately, human life.
Therefore, I can%26#039;t get on board the global warming trend. As a scientist, I know there is no causation evidence between CO2 and global warming. In fact, the other planets are getting warmer now, which completely negates the %26quot;man-made%26quot; global warming trend.
But the larger question is, even if this were true, how do we know that we wouldn%26#039;t be better off in the long run with an impact such as this? And more importantly, since natural selection created us, how are we not doing EXACTLY what natrure intended us to do?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-w...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...
* You must be logged into Answers to add comments. Sign in or Register.
Other Answers (19)
-
i trust scientist and they all say that global warming is a hoax and yes, the ice caps are melting on mars
they are not melting here, SOURCE NASA, among others
it is a way to control the population, tax people and re-distribute wealth, and bankrupt and put in poverty everyone
so far it is working
obama wants to see 12 dollars a gallon
can we afford socialism?
If you really are a scientist, please act like one and do your research.
http://greenhome.huddler.com/wiki/global...
To answer your question, yes, I trust scientists. It%26#039;s the job of a scientist to be unbiased (as a scientist, you should know this). Scientists who falsify data are always caught almost immediately and their careers are over.
Well, you could say Man was doing exactly what was intended when Hitler invaded Europe, and Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Personally there%26#039;s some stuff man does whose consequences I%26#039;d rather avoid, if possible.
EDIT - And here are some of the negative impacts:
From the Centers for Disease Control:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008...
From military leaders:
http://securityandclimate.cna.org/report...
From a group of several Federal Agencies:
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sa...
From an international group of scientists:
http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNe...
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg2.h...
Some stuff there I think we definitely want to avoid. -
As a social class I find scientists more trustworthy than some other occupation types I%26#039;ve dealt with, but any person can be flawed.
I%26#039;m surprised you mention temperature trends on other planets, since as a scientist you should realize that proves absolutely nothing about what%26#039;s going on on Earth.
Are you asking whether we would be better off with global warming? Well, perhaps some people would, but our society is adapted for climate the way it is, if it changes it will cost us trillions of dollars and perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives (or more). Are you asking that we sacrifice those people for the betterment of the species? -
Where do acid rain come from?
Do this destroy forests and wild life?
Is trees and plants needed for human survival?
Are plants and trees interconnected to the ozone layer?
Human made technology that release emissions speeds up and destroys the very foundation to what makes the ozone layer possible on this planet. This keeps out ultra-violent rays. Do you believe this as a scientist?
Other planets clearly show that if you don%26#039;t have plant life or trees than you want have an ozone layer to keep out ultra violent rays.
What will happen if trees and plants are not protected by the ozone?
Global warming is caused by human technology that destroys the very foundation to what make life possible. Trees, plants, water.
The protection of all biological life on this planet is the ozone layer and trees and plants is the cause of this layer, with the depletion of our ozone layer we have serious problems.
Last, the emissions by coal factories and cars alone destroys rain forests, plants and contaminate drinking water.
All this is what contributes to global warming. Observation and environmental science books. -
If you are going to state you are a scientist and then come out in favor of the%26quot;other planet are warming theory%26quot; you have effectively proved you are not a scientist, because outside of blogs and silly answers here, there is no such theory
Mars shrinking southern polar cap is most likely cause by local dust storms
Pluto%26#039;s very slight warming is down to its stretched orbit
and the only other one %26quot;Jupiter%26quot; is showing a storm effect in an atmosphere we know little about.
As a scientist you would know that the Sun has been observed since the late 70%26#039;s the entire period when these other planets have supposedly warmed, and no output change of any note has been observed. The thing deniers seem to over look with this silly theory is Venus, its massive greenhouse effect means any solar caused warming would show as a significant increase there, it hasn%26#039;t shown any sign of warming.
-
Answer hidden due to its low rating
Of course we cannot trust the scientist who have endorsed the idea of anthropogenic global warming...one only has to evaluate this %26#039;theory%26#039; based on the scientific method, something that has been done away with in this arena today....good point. olddoc -
Answer hidden due to its low rating
F.A. Hayek wrote about the politicization of science in his chapter %26quot;The End of Truth%26quot; in his book %26quot;The Road to Serfdom%26quot; - I HIGHLY recommend it.
