Disagreeing Scientists

Does the fact that scientists don't all agree about the causes of the changes we're seeing make you skeptical of their predictions and recommendations?

Your Comments, Thoughts, Questions, Ideas

Joe's picture
Joe says:

Not really. I think most of the recommendations that researchers have are reasonable if they are right about global warming or not. For example, lessening our dependence on fossil fuels is a good idea no matter what, and if it helps reduce greenhouse gases and thus helps with global warming, all the better.

posted on Mon, 10/17/2005 - 5:06pm
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

Global warming is a function of our excesses, but it's also a function of our chief error: DENIAL. Solve that unwillingness to believe the truth in front of our faces (globe's age, ecology, local resources) and you solve much of what's wrong with the world.

posted on Mon, 10/24/2005 - 2:53pm
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

Global warming is a big problem! The polar bears and other arctic animals are becoming extinct and if those die, then whatever eats them will die and then the whole circle of life will die.

posted on Mon, 10/24/2005 - 2:54pm
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

not to mention what could possibly happen if all the icebergs in the word began to melt! what a scary world it would be!

posted on Sat, 03/11/2006 - 8:14pm
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

Hmmmmm....Let's just go with it. Maybe things like reforestation will reduce the hurricanes our children face!

posted on Mon, 10/24/2005 - 3:04pm
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

Depends on the scientist. I don't think reforestation will change the amount of hurricanes we get. I do believe the sun is heating us up, though.

posted on Mon, 10/24/2005 - 3:05pm
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

No. Science involves paradigm shifts. Durring the period of the "shift" there are always some old school proponents who vigorously deny that any change is happening. The old idea is still valid for them. But given that the old view also lends credence to the "do nothing" views of some political and economic groups, this old paradigm has been hanging on long after it would normally have gone away. But just looking at the number of scientists who have accepted the new paradigm, the old one will go away eventually.

posted on Sat, 11/26/2005 - 10:42am
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

I think global warming is a big problem because so many animals would lose their homes.

posted on Wed, 11/30/2005 - 12:07pm
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

Maybe...because it only goes up one degree. But, in the future, it could get very hot.

posted on Wed, 11/30/2005 - 12:09pm
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

I'm not necessarily convinced our contribution to the greenhouse effect is indeed tipping the scales for a global climate shift, but I do believe a drastic climate shift is a strong possibility.

posted on Wed, 11/30/2005 - 12:10pm
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

whether this is true or not it could make a large difference in the world of science

posted on Wed, 03/29/2006 - 11:20am
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

A bigger problem is that children and near-children are using junk science in a mix with good science to turn these questions into socio-political games. So sad.

posted on Wed, 11/30/2005 - 12:11pm
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

No way. Just look at all the melting ice at the poles!

posted on Wed, 11/30/2005 - 12:12pm
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

Yes, if it continues Arctic animals could get extinct becuase the ice caps and regular ice is getting smaller.

posted on Thu, 01/12/2006 - 2:29pm
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

The ice cap is only melting in the Artic. It is growing in the Antartic.

posted on Thu, 06/01/2006 - 11:51am
Liza's picture
Liza says:

Hmmmm...It's not quite so simple. Recent research suggests that ice is melting in the Arctic, the Greenland ice sheet is losing mass, and the West Antarctic ice sheet is thinning. Scientists haven't come to a definitive answer yet about whether or not the East Antarctic ice sheet--the larger part of Antarctica's ice--is gaining or losing.

In 2002, the Antarctic Larsen B ice shelf--which was about the size of Rhode Island--collapsed. Compare these photos of the the area before and after the collapse. (You'll have to scroll down to the bottom of the page.)

Recent research by the British Antarctic Survey shows that 87% of Antarctic glaciers are shrinking.

This table shows the extent of ice melt around the world.

USA Today did a Q&A page that addresses some of these issues. Or read

Why does it matter, anyway? Read Rachel's blog post ("Imbalance at the poles?") from last summer.

posted on Thu, 06/01/2006 - 1:50pm
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

What? Look at the poles! It's all snow and ice. It's not melting.

posted on Thu, 01/12/2006 - 2:30pm
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

The only people who don't agree with the international scientific community that climate change is real are our politicians!

posted on Tue, 12/13/2005 - 4:06pm
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

"Global warming" is a natural process that we are merely contributing to. Lowering emissions won't stop it.

posted on Tue, 12/13/2005 - 4:07pm
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

No one will have any proof either way until we have recorded what the temperature will do in the next few centuries. We can't base "facts" on just one century of records. We need to continue our study.

posted on Tue, 12/13/2005 - 4:09pm
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

I agree. We have no proof that there is such a thing as global warming.

posted on Thu, 01/12/2006 - 2:26pm
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

I do not think global warming is a real problem. I don't think it is even happening! Just because the temperature has gone up one degree in the last 100 years doesn't mean everything is going to continue going up. For all we know, it will go down two degrees in the next 75 years. The only way we can know if this is really happening is to wait and record for a long time.

posted on Tue, 12/13/2005 - 4:16pm
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

Global warming is 98% natural. Only 2% is from us. In the past 20 years, a cooling trend has been happening.

posted on Thu, 01/12/2006 - 2:33pm
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

amen!

posted on Thu, 01/12/2006 - 2:35pm
Gene's picture
Gene says:

There was a cooling trend from 1940 to 1970 (and at other times during the historic past, as well). But since at least 1980, the trend has been up.

posted on Wed, 03/29/2006 - 10:26am
All-Weather Fashion Police's picture
All-Weather Fashion Police says:

No matter what the temperature is, never wear socks with sandals!!!

posted on Sat, 03/11/2006 - 5:44pm
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

weather, dont sweat it baby

posted on Sat, 03/11/2006 - 8:13pm
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

i found a graph that shows that the temperature in Antarctica 300,000 years ago was negative 60 degrees Farenheit. It also shows that in Antarctica today the temp. is negative 68 degrees Farenheit. Call me stupid, but I think possibly the earth is actually getting COOLER.

posted on Fri, 01/12/2007 - 9:05am
Charles Phipps's picture
Charles Phipps says:

I believe that global warming is a definite possibility but as to scientists determining it's exact cause, future progression and potential treatments, I am less than optimistic. This is mainly because the more complex a system is, the less likely is it to be understood by scientists. I am old enough to remember from the seventies that scientist were predicting we were going into an ice age. Before my time, but well into the scientific revolution of the previous century, it was being taught as fact that the sun was 66% iron. This was due to misreading spectrographs and scientists being too human to really believe they were totally wrong. Despite the conception of scientists as objective and logical beings perpetuated by the Professor on Gilligan's Island, they have their biases and beliefs that don't have to have that much to do with reality for them to cling to them. It is for this reason that I think we should be very careful before we decide on what, if any, large scale "repairs" we wish to do to our fragile environment. Clearly, nuclear power would be one extremely safe step that would reduce greenhouse gases but as to purposely making major changes in other areas, we should maybe act very slowly.

posted on Thu, 02/08/2007 - 10:46pm
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

yea it is

posted on Mon, 09/24/2007 - 1:10pm
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

Y'know, I found in a movie called "The Great Global Warming Shwindle " that this whole idea of carbon regulation is a scam to impose against the will of sovereign states to acquiesce to global rule. A carbon tax perhaps. It also said that there are already stipulations placed on third world countries to deny them the use of fossil fuels and requiring poor people to use solar and wind powered technologies which keep them in economic turmoil. (their argument probably being they wouldn't use them and administer them "efficiently") The world is being oppressed globally.

The "end-all-debate" graph Al Gore presents in his farce they don't mention doesn't mirror Co2 production and global temp but shows that Co2 production and global temps follow each other by some 800 years, but it looks "clear and simple" when you pull out to observe thousands of years which is kinda friggin' useless. Point is, if Co2 has an effect, it's so minusule that it takes hundreds of years for it to actually have an effect. So current regulation would seem a pretty premature ad incorrect course of action. Not to mention volcanoes produce much more Co2 by far, than our emissions, another factor showing this is out of our control and our only hope for humanity's success is to rise towards changes in freedom and not harm ourselves being alarmed about illusory foes or foolish tactics. The concern needs to be placed on human rights and taking secrecy and control from those powerful and greedy.

Much scientific data has shown that the sun is escaping our primitive observations of what we expect it's behaviour to be and is entering unknown patterns of increased activity. The sun is over 90% of the mass in the universe and if you think you're a greater contributing factor in the heat department you would seem quite foolish.

"Telegraph - Bob Carter
Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.

Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?"
[Taken from http://www.everythingiknowiswrong.com/science/index.html]

posted on Sun, 10/28/2007 - 4:07pm
Gene's picture
Gene says:

I believe you meant to say the Sun is over 90% of the mass in the solar system. It is considerably less than that for the entire Universe.

Also, most charts show the current spell of global warming beginning around 1980, not 1970. (Indeed, the 1970s are generally seen as a period of global cooling.)

posted on Sun, 10/28/2007 - 5:16pm
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

I think the world hasn't been studied long enough to know that this isn't just a normal pattern. Also, if all scientist don't agree or can duplicate the results they aren't able to be taken very seriously.

posted on Wed, 03/07/2012 - 3:53pm

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <h3> <h4> <em> <i> <strong> <b> <span> <ul> <ol> <li> <blockquote> <object> <embed> <param> <sub> <sup>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may embed videos from the following providers vimeo, youtube. Just add the video URL to your textarea in the place where you would like the video to appear, i.e. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pw0jmvdh.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Images can be added to this post.

More information about formatting options