Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the time of Newton, 97% of the scientific community couldn't explain gravity.
In the time of Galileo, 97% of the scientific community insisted the earth was flat.
In the time of Einstein, 97% of the scientific community thought he was insane.
In the Dark Ages, 97% of the scientific community thought disease was caused by evil spirits.
In the 1970s, the majority of scientists were predicting the next Ice Age to be just around the temporal corner.
Considering that science is an ever-changing discipline, and scientists are constantly proving themselves and their predecessors to be wrong, why should we put any faith in the 97% of the 32% of the people who responded in this study?
What scientific community?
The "scientific community" was censored by the church; where scientists were burned as heretics and/or incarcerated?
Hence the religious idiots still refuting any science.
If you know anything about science, unlikely as it seems, you'd know that science changes as more information is gathered.
Wanna know why there is no scientific research on chemtrails?
Because it's not funded.
Wanna know why individual scientific research on chemtrails isn't done?
You know the answer.
That would have been along the lines of my answer, so I couldn't participate in this poll.
Yes, there is climate change, and it is man-made now, because they are engineering much of this change.
There's a new whistleblower on chemtrails, I'm starting a thread.
It doesn't have to be a conspiracy to be an opportunity for people with college degrees slightly less marketable than anthropology degrees to experience relevance, provided they go along with the AGW story.
Without an environmental crisis, who needs a climate scientist?
You're failing to address the issue by attempting to discredit thousands of individuals and their motives which is an egregious logical fallacy. Even if we entertained the idea that every single climatologist was crooked, that doesn't necessarily mean that AGW is false. It would make it highly doubtful and the claims dubious, sure, but it doesn't actually disprove something. You're not addressing the science - only the people performing the science with little to no evidence to back up your claim.
You know what I don't see from all the AGW deniers on these threads? I don't see relevant scientific papers on the topic being scrutinized in an empirical fashion. I don't see experiments that contra-indicate any of the scientific papers' findings. I don't see published articles from Nature or other scientific periodicals being used as arguments against AGW.
You know what I do see? I see a lot of people making claims that "this person is doubtful" or "it's all liberal nonsense," or even arguments over certain aspects of climatology without proof. I see no statistical data from the denier crowd showing any sort of trend data, sampling from other atmospherical phenomena, or proof that other factors are at work.
Why don't you take the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's "The Physical Science Basis" report and read it? Pay particularly close attention to Sections 1.2 and 1.3. And then, if at all possible, please provide refutations of the data and the science referenced within. Failing that, explain to me why we should still ignore it and listen to people such as yourself who clearly don't know the science but insist that it's wrong.
"Science" is not a poll or a popularity contest, "proven" by a show of hands. Indisputeable empiric data constitutes science.
This is in the same neighborhood of the point I was going to make. All this arguing about consensus is pointless anyway. It's an invalid argument based on the fallacy argumentum ad populum.
You're failing to address the issue by attempting to discredit thousands of individuals and their motives which is an egregious logical fallacy. Even if we entertained the idea that every single climatologist was crooked, that doesn't necessarily mean that AGW is false. It would make it highly doubtful and the claims dubious, sure, but it doesn't actually disprove something. You're not addressing the science - only the people performing the science with little to no evidence to back up your claim.
You know what I don't see from all the AGW deniers on these threads? I don't see relevant scientific papers on the topic being scrutinized in an empirical fashion. I don't see experiments that contra-indicate any of the scientific papers' findings. I don't see published articles from Nature or other scientific periodicals being used as arguments against AGW.
You know what I do see? I see a lot of people making claims that "this person is doubtful" or "it's all liberal nonsense," or even arguments over certain aspects of climatology without proof. I see no statistical data from the denier crowd showing any sort of trend data, sampling from other atmospherical phenomena, or proof that other factors are at work.
Why don't you take the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's "The Physical Science Basis" report and read it? Pay particularly close attention to Sections 1.2 and 1.3. And then, if at all possible, please provide refutations of the data and the science referenced within. Failing that, explain to me why we should still ignore it and listen to people such as yourself who clearly don't know the science but insist that it's wrong.
How many researchers have been allowed to publish their research on the climatic affects-effects of HAARP and Chemtrails?
How many researchers have been allowed to publish their research on the climatic affects-effects of HAARP and Chemtrails?
Answer: None
Probably because pseudoscience and crackpot conspiracy theories are not a good place to start a scientific endeavor. The premise does not start with "If chemtrails consisting of 'X chemicals' and 'Y pollutants' are dispersed in the atmosphere..." It tends to start with "Since chemtrails of 'X chemicals' and 'Y pollutants' are dispersed in the atmosphere." There's a big difference, mainly because there has been no demonstrable evidence of chemtrails being dispersed in the atmosphere.
But, hey, at least you acknowledge that pollutants in the air can cause climate change which is better than most.
I am a scientist, I know many scientists (and don't just make huge generalizations about them on internet forums), and what you're trying to get explained is more complicated than you're presenting.
Money
Bias
Adequate review
Misinterpreted data points
Lack of context relative to the entire history of the planet
Political and economic ramifications of anything that's said
Pressure to publish
Weigh any and all studies against these things - they weaken significantly.
That being said, I do believe that the human race as a population is disgustingly wasteful and destructive and that needs to stop. For our own sake. Not for that of the planet. The planet will go on. We won't.
Probably because pseudoscience and crackpot conspiracy theories are not a good place to start a scientific endeavor. The premise does not start with "If chemtrails consisting of 'X chemicals' and 'Y pollutants' are dispersed in the atmosphere..." It tends to start with "Since chemtrails of 'X chemicals' and 'Y pollutants' are dispersed in the atmosphere." There's a big difference, mainly because there has been no demonstrable evidence of chemtrails being dispersed in the atmosphere.
But, hey, at least you acknowledge that pollutants in the air can cause climate change which is better than most.
Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant.
It is necessary to most all life on this planet.
Derrogatizing plain view evidence is symptomatic of a hapless liar.
The US isn't taking action.
Much of the rest of the world is.
I like to make the joke as I travel throughout the world, that there is no climate change in the US.
The US is known to be a bunch of ideological idiots, it's to easy to confirm.
Of course there is climate change. It's always changed.
This is in the same neighborhood of the point I was going to make. All this arguing about consensus is pointless anyway. It's an invalid argument based on the fallacy argumentum ad populum.
You gotta be kidding....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You gotta be kidding....