Yes
No
For those of you who do not think humans are causing climate change, please answer these three questions. I am very curious to hear your answers:
1. Do the majority of climate scientists state that humans are a cause of global climate change?
2. Do you think you understand the data better than climate scientists do?
3. Do you think scientists generally can be trusted?
Originally Posted by bu villain
1. Climate scientists by definition have an agenda. As we have seen with Climate-Gate, they arent above selective use of data to support their hypotheses,
2. You dont have to fully understand the data to be skeptical. You simply have to look at those that are pushing it hardest. Namely those with something to profit from it. I.E. Al Gore. His company stands to profit massively by running the exchange for carbon credits if cap and trade passes.
3. Hell no. They have an agenda and as I stated in my first answer, they will selectively use data to fit their own ideas, not the other way around like it is supposed to be.
1. Yes.
2. No, but the same is true of weather people. Where they can be totally wrong, be paid for it and not ever be held accountable if they are wrong.
3. Depends on the issue and what that scientist specializes in.
There was is also a great series of audio clips that are on the Michael Smerconish morning show: http://www.mastalk.com/audio.php
Check it out... brings a happy medium to the whole thing about it AND offers the same exact questions to two opposing scientific views... One doctor from Texas Tech (if i remember correctly... could be wrong) and the other from MIT (Mass. Institute of Technology).
1.) yes, the majority of scientists support the climate change models.
2.) I'm not a climate scientist, but I know a little about how the Earth warms and cools over geological timelines that last millions of years. I trust what I understand of the science better than I trust the interpretations of talk-radio hosts or Fox news "entertainers".
3.) The consenus of Scientists can generally be trusted, now that the scientific method is established and the process is more empirical. Its true that at one point in time, before the practice of "science" as we know it today, those who could be compared to scientists thought the Earth was the center of the universe, that the Earth was only 6,000 years old, etc. But the discoveries of a round Earth, that revolved around the sun and was pushing 5 billion years old were brought forth by scientists, against the protests of "conservative" types who had much to gain by preserving the order of things the way it was. While the scientists in favor of climate change may have a stake in grants and carbon credits, the opposition has its own stake in the future of the fossil fuel industry.
Thanks for the honest answers. It seems from this very unscientific inquiry that how you feel about climate change is pretty much directly tied to how much you trust the proponents of it. The first question seems to have little to no bearing on peoples feelings and the second one is almost universally "No".
I would like to point out that what you think about a person's motives should not be used to argue whether they are right or wrong. Arguments (especially scientific) should be based on facts only. This is true for Al Gore, Sean Hannity, or anyone else.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
