If there's a conspiracy it seems to be too reduce trust in science. We can't do all the measurements ourselves. The spherical earth has been known about for millennia from things like varying angle of the sun. Millions of people work in science and other fields that assume a globe. Are they all in on the conspiracy? Some flat earthers say they don't believe in space. So the US, Russians, Chinese and other space nations must be in on it. Sorry guys, but I'll trust the scientists and not random people on the Internet :)
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
There is some of that. Yet that is also poor education. We have "scientists" stating things without using the scientific method, and thus that is not science.
We have people that use the scientific method and thus are actually practicing science, but they are not considered a credible scientist due to lack of a piece of paper from an accredited source saying they can make that claim.
The scientific method is simply a tool. An absolutely beautiful tool.
As with any tool people can misuse them, and being an AUTHORITY doesn't make them immune from doing bad things.
The problem really is I don't believe a lot of people that throw the word SCIENCE around actually know what science is.
Scientists are humans and may have vested interests, but if they lie they will be found out in many cases. I expect they quite enjoy proving others wrong
Steevc, there is a lot of pseudo-science being used in the whole global warming debate. Scientists on both sides using skewed datasets to support their belief. With that being said it is simply amazing that the two sides can even agree upon that the climate is warming at all.
I have as of yet to read one study, from either side, that takes into account ALL manmade, and ALL natural sources of CO2 emissions into account globally to come up with their numbers. I know we are exiting a period of cooling that roughly began 15k years ago, and i know that we will enter into another cooling period in roughly another 15k years... as it seems we enter an ICEAGE of some form every 25-30k years... and the last one was roughly 12-15k years ago....why is this not being factored into the equation along with the natural and man made CO2 emissions data? if all of the date were collected and a correlation betwqeen them it would make measuring mankind's role, and to what degree mankind's role is in climate change actually is... Instead we continue to get skewed data from both sides because posturing for their platforms has become paramount to real scientific methodology..... And this is but one example of such cases in which Pseudo-science is superceeding real science.... So why should those perpetuating "flat earth theory" be any different? lol...
I'm sure some teams are factoring in all they can. If they are seeing rapid changes then it's unlikely to be a natural process. Even if we are not changing the climate it's undeniable that we are poisoning our environment.
As for flat earth, that was resolved centuries ago. There's little to be gained by debating that.
see but that's my point... do you know that we have also entered into a period of higher than normal geologic activity?(volcanoes). Volcanoes pump more CO2, and other gasses into the atmosphere in one day of euruption than all of the vehicles in the U.S. does in a year? yeat all you ever hear climatologists talk about are the manmade sources... the data is skewered, it isn't real science... it is a Pseudo science because they are neglecting to incorporate ALL of the data... not only that, but how on earth would you do a double blind study to determine the amount of CO2 from only man made sources? it is things like flat earth, and climate change that make me sick of pseudo science being called science at all....
I'm sure real scientists take this into account and I think they might be a little insulted that you suggest otherwise. What interest do they have in doing 'pseudo science'? Nothing is perfect, not even science, but you do the best you can. By your measure a lot of biology would not be classed as science, but we rely on it for medicines. We don't have a spare planet to use, so why gamble on messing up this one. As I said, the pollution produced along with all the CO2 is doing damage we can plainly see.
i can agree on the pollution....and it should be addressed....separately. pollution and climate are two separate issues, my only issue with climate change science is the overweighted ammount of responsibility they place on manmade CO2 emissions as the greatest contributor to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere... when in reality thereare a number of contributors, many of them being natural sources.