Donate SIGN UP

Mainstream Science.

Avatar Image
Atheist | 18:54 Thu 04th Mar 2021 | Science
77 Answers
Why do some people disbelieve the current scientific consensus regarding e.g. evolution or man-made global warming? There are people who cherry-pick comments from a tiny minority of scientists so as to find stuff that supports their own views. Where do their views come from if not from an instinct that tells them that mainstream science is against their religion or that it must be wrong simply because it is mainstream?
There is sometimes a view expressed that everybody laughed at so-and-so and called him a crank; and then he was later vindicated. I don't think that 'cranks' are usually right, I think they are usually wrong. Lets face it, mainstream science has led to an understanding of the solar system and powered flight and electronics and social media. Most of the crank stuff has disappeared when it became obvious that it didn't work.
Can anyone name one 'crank' who was later vindicated?
Gravatar

Answers

21 to 40 of 77rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by Atheist. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Question Author
My original question was "Why do some people disbelieve the current scientific consensus regarding e.g. evolution or man-made global warming?"
All the replies seem to think that current scientific consensus is not very important. The list of scientists who proposed new theories and were eventually accepted seems to be considered as an indication that oddballs are often right and that science is very narrow-minded.
Better not have a jab or go flying in an aeroplane or ......
Just had a call from Donkey Rescue to say that the mules appreciate your performance so far Atheist.

'faint applause and hoof shuffling'
Maybe it was just my imagination running away with me but didnt the question ask "Can anyone name one 'crank' who was later vindicated?" and douglas answered it well
Question Author
Ah, well, Doug; it takes all sorts. "There's none sae daft as cannae see his very own pomposity." An' that's masel' talkin' aboot masel' (bein' quarter Scots)
Nowadays people can choose their own truth. If you don't like it that the facts don't match with what you'd like to believe, a bit of googling will quickly find someone on YouTube that confirms you are right.
Atheist - “Why do some people disbelieve the current scientific consensus regarding e.g. evolution or man-made global warming?”


With all due respect, conflating the consensus on evolution with man-made [anthropogenic] global warming (hereafter AGW) is disingenuous.

First of all – what do you mean that there is a consensus on AGW? The statement posed is far too simplistic since the matter is much more nuanced that that. For instance, if you're referring to the Cook et al study which concluded that 97% of scientists agree that AGW is happening and is primarily the fault of mankind's activities, then that study has been thoroughly discredited and shown to be entirely fraudulent. In fact, when the study was done again – but this time with proper checks and balances – it showed that less than 3% agreed with the premise that AGW was happening and was primarily the fault of mankind's activities.

An example of why the question is a nuanced one is as follows. Take the following two statements:

1. It likely that AGW accounts for at least half (ie. the majority) of the observed warming.
2. AGW poses an imminent danger to mankind.

I read somewhere (I shall try to dig out the reference) that around 70% of scientists (ie. not necessarily climate scientists, just scientists in general) agree with statement [1]. But less than 10% agree with statement [2]. Therefore, when we read headlines like, “There is consensus amongst scientists about AGW”, that in and of itself is meaningless. Just because people agree that something is happening, it does not follow that the something in question is dangerous and/or is a thing that should be mitigated against at colossal economic expense. The mainstream media has quite successfully managed to conflate statement [1] with statement [2], resulting in the public thinking that an overwhelming majority of scientists think that AGW is happening and is a dangerous threat to mankind when this is simply not the case.

As an aside, I have noticed in the last few years that every January, the BBC fly a small news team out to Antarctica to film melting glaciers and sea ice breaking up. They show the footage with a doom-laden narration that suggests (but does not explicitly say) that this is AGW in action. What they never say is that January in Antarctica is high summer since they're in the Southern Hemisphere. They lie by deliberate omission. It's an excellent way to mislead an audience that they hope are too stupid to notice. Funny how they never report on the ice forming in Antarctica in June...

But I digress.

Second, there is the problem with the basic principles of scientific enquiry that are routinely ignored when it comes to AGW. Richard Feynman puts it best:
https://bit.ly/3bmlG5z

In climate science, observed measurements are routinely ignored and/or marginalised in favour of computer models. In climate science, the mantra seems to be, “If the model doesn't agree with the observations, alter the observations”. Alterations of empirical data gathered from climate stations is now routine. In order for the present to appear to be warmer than the past, historical data is manipulated downwards, making the past appear cooler and the present warmer. Original data is then destroyed.

But that's another matter for another day.
'' I only religionists did the same.''

So you think God can be discovered by experimentation?
Well as long as you are comfortable with that idea ......
Birdie @ 01:46 - A voice of reason and common sense.
I post the following for anyone interested. These are not my words:

***

A chronology of climate change

During most of the last billion years the Earth did not have permanent ice sheets. Nevertheless, at times large areas of the globe were covered with vast sheets of ice. Such times are known as
glaciations. In the past 2 million to 3 million years, the temperature of the Earth has changed (warmed or cooled) at least 17 times, some say 33, with glaciations that last about 100,000 years interrupted by warm periods that last about 10,000 years. The last glaciation began 70,000 years ago and ended about 10,000 years ago. The Earth was a lot colder than it is now; snow and ice had accumulated on a lot of the land, glaciers existed on large areas and the sea levels were lower.

15,000 years ago: The last glaciation reaches a peak, with continental glaciers that cover a lot of the sub-polar and polar areas of the land areas of Earth. In North America, all of New England and
all of the Great Lakes area, most of Ohio, Indiana, Minnesota and the North Dakotas, lie under ice sheets hundreds of meters thick. More than 37 million cubic kilometers of ice was tied up in these global sheets of ice. The average temperature on the surface of the Earth is estimated to have been cooler by approximately 6 degrees Celsius than currently. The sea level was more than 90 meters lower than currently.

15,000 years ago to 6,000 years ago: Global warming begins. The sheets of ice melt, and sea levels rise. Some heat source causes approximately 37 million cubic kilometers of ice to melt in approximately 9,000 years. Around 9,500 years ago, the last of the Northern European sheets of ice leave Scandinavia. Around 7,500 years ago, the last of the American sheets of ice leave Canada.
This warming is neither stable nor the same everywhere. There are periods when mountain glaciers advance, and periods when they withdraw. These climatic changes vary extensively from place to
place, with some areas affected while others are not. The tendency of warming is global and obvious, but very uneven. The causes of this period of warming are unknown.

8,000 years ago to 4,000 years ago: About 6,000 years ago, temperatures on the surface of Earth are about 3 degrees warmer than currently. The Arctic Ocean is ice-free, and mountain glaciers have disappeared from the mountains of Norway and the Alps in Europe, and from the Rocky Mountains of the United States and Canada. The ocean of the world is some three meters higher than currently. A lot of the present desert of the Sahara has a more humid, savannah-like climate, with giraffes and savannah fauna species.

4,000 years ago to AD 900: Global cooling begins. The Arctic Ocean freezes over, mountain glaciers form once more in the Rocky Mountains, in Norway and in the Alps. The Black Sea freezes
over several times, and ice forms on the Nile in Egypt. Northern Europe gets a lot wetter, and the marshes develop again in previously dry areas. The sea level drops to approximately its present level. The temperatures on the surface of the Earth are about 0.5-1 degree cooler than at present. The causes of this period of cooling are unknown.

AD 1000 to 1500: This period has quick, but uneven, warming of the climate of the Northern Hemisphere. The North Atlantic becomes ice-free and Norse exploration as far as North America takes place. The Norse colonies in Greenland even export crop surpluses to Scandinavia. Wine grapes grow in southern Britain. The temperatures are from 3-8 degrees warmer than currently. The period lasts only a brief 500 years. By the year 1500, it has vanished. The Earth experiences as much warming between the 11th and the 13th century as is now predicted by global-warming scientists for the next century. The causes of this period of warming are unknown.

continued...
continued....

1430 to 1880: This is a period of the fast but uneven cooling of Northern Hemisphere climates. Norwegian glaciers advance to their most distant extension in post-glacial times. The northern
forests disappear, to be replaced with tundra. Severe winters characterize a lot of Europe and North America. The channels and rivers get colder, the snows get heavy, and the summers cool and short. The temperatures on the surface of the world are about 0.5-1.5 degrees cooler than present. In the United States, 1816 is known as the "year with no summer". Snow falls in New England in June. The widespread failure of crops and deaths due to hypothermia are common. The causes of this period of cooling are unknown.

1880 to 1940: A period of warming. The mountain glaciers recede and the ice in the Arctic Ocean begins to melt again. The causes of this period of warming are unknown.

1940 to 1977: Cooling period. The temperatures are cooler than currently. Mountain glaciers recede, and some begin to advance. The tabloids inform us of widespread catastrophes due to the
"New Glaciation". The causes of this period of cooling are unknown.

1977 to present: Warming period. The summer of 2003 is said to be the warmest one since the Middle Ages. The tabloids notify us of widespread catastrophes due to "global warming". The causes of warming are discovered - humanity and its carbon-dioxide-generating fossil-fuel use and deforestation.

Anyone else find something fishy about the final sentence?

***
I have noted how farmers using poly tunnels buy CO2 to pump into their crops to aid growth.
I've also noted how scientists who do not, ''tow the party line,'' and agree with the authorised version put out by academia, stand to lose research grants, promotions and even livelihoods.
The hysteria has the potential to be a big money spinner for new enterprises, driven by the global elites, and the Global Economic Forum in Davos. That is, The Great Reset Agenda 2021.
Just a handful of multi billionaires increasing their wealth and power by manipulating global economies, and climate change is just one vehicle they use in pursuit of their goals.
There you go Atheist. Question answered. It's because some people mistake reading random stuff from various people on the Internet from putting the work in to do actual scientific research as a qualified scientist.
Theland - “I have noted how farmers using poly tunnels buy CO2 to pump into their crops to aid growth.”

Indeed. Atmospheric CO2 is currently around 410ppm (parts per million). Industrial vegetable farmers routinely pump their massive greenhouses with CO2, raising them from 410ppm up to and sometimes beyond 1500ppm with no ill effects to the greenhouse workers. This increase results in substantially accelerated growth. The results are actually quite startling. Plants *love* CO2; it 'greens' the planet. So much so that NASA has estimated that the additional 2-4% of atmospheric CO2 which has been released due to the burning of fossil fuels has resulted in “... an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the [size of the] continental United States.” (https://go.nasa.gov/3eqBSVl)
Theland - “... I've also noted how scientists who do not, ''tow the party line,'' and agree with the authorised version put out by academia, stand to lose research grants, promotions and even livelihoods...”

Correct again. Publication bias is so endemic in climate science that not only do scientists who do not concord with the alleged consensus find that it's almost impossible to publish their findings, they often lose their jobs if they speak out against it. A contemporary example of this is Peter Ridd, formally of the James Cook University, North Queensland, Australia. He had the temerity to publicly call into question the claim that coral reefs were in imminent danger of extinction due to climate change (they aren't). He based his arguments on observed data rather than computer models. He was fired as a result. He won a subsequent unfair dismal case which was then appealed and the appeal granted. The case is still ongoing.

The point is that if you question the mainstream media narrative on CO2, you run the very real risk of losing your livelihood just for having an opinion and/or for correctly stating that empirical evidence does not agree with the outputs of computer models. Computer models bedevil climate science. But, once again, that's a matter for another day.
But don't take my word for it, good people of AB. Take the words of the people that were or are directly involved in constructing the narrative that anthropogenic CO2 is dangerous for the planet...


“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true” – Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

“We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse... isn’t it our job to bring that about?” - Maurice Strong

”In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and thus the real enemy, then, is humanity itself… we believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is a real one or one invented for the purpose“ - The Club of Rome

“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models” - Professor Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

“The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful” - Dr David Frame, climate modeller, Oxford University

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth” - Ottmar Edenhofer

“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe” - Emeritus Professor Daniel Botkin.

I could go on and on and on with these...
We have been trained like Pavlov's dogs through lockdowns, to be completely obedient.
tomus42

Oh dear. Do some actual research. Please.

I'm not quoting “... random stuff from various people on the Internet...”. I've spent about ten years looking into this matter. I've read extensively from both side of the argument. I can defend the conclusions I've reached with actual facts and data.

Can you say the same?


Here's a simple breakdown of the facts just for you:

1. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is just 0.04% of the total (21% Oxygen, 78% nitrogen, with the remaining 1% made up of all the other gases in the periodic table of the elements).
2. Of that 0.04%, mankind's burning of fossil fuels represents only about 3%. The remaining 97% of atmospheric CO2 is entirely natural – it is the out-gassing of the oceans, the decomposition of plants and the expiration of every living thing on the planet. We can do nothing about the natural emissions of CO2.
3. The UK (and I'm assuming you're a UK dweller) accounts for around just 1% of global CO2 emissions.
4. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas. The most potent greenhouse is water vapour.
5. The ability of CO2 to trap heat is logarithmic and we're at the downward trough of that curve. Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will result in an ever decreasing temperature increase.
6. Throughout most of the Earth's history, atmospheric CO2 levels have been substantially higher than today with no adverse consequences to life. In fact, during the Great Cambrian Explosion – where life on Earth really took off in a big way – atmospheric CO2 levels were around 4000ppm which is about 10 times higher than present.
7. All life on Earth ceases to exist when CO2 drops to around 180ppm.

Taking the above points on board, please tell me why anthropogenic CO2 is a problem today?
Theland - “We have been trained like Pavlov's dogs through lockdowns, to be completely obedient.”

Indeed we have:
Birdie, you are well aware of my Christian faith, but I am not trying to push it on you or anybody else, as everybody is already aware of what it constitutes.
One of the things that attracted me to the bible is the accurate prophecies.
Everything said so far regarding population control, natural disasters etc fits perfectly with bible prophecy, as well as predicting history.
But I digress.
My faith in the bible is such that I can predict the future myself.
Folk on here, worrying about flying off on holiday and getting more stuff, simply strengthens my belief.
The media are complicit in what seems to be a great conspiracy.
Not many people are prepared to dig down for truth, but are taken in by what is fed to them, and intoxicated by celebrity.
There is no way out.
Mankind will continue on the disastrous path, misled and misinformed, and the sad bit is, they will love it!
Brave New World indeed.
Out of this mess will come war.
I am familiar with the Australian case, an utter disgrace.

21 to 40 of 77rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Mainstream Science.

Answer Question >>

Related Questions