Lv 7
? asked in EnvironmentGlobal Warming · 6 years ago

Which scientists should you believe? The ones getting paid to say human activity does not cause climate change, or the ones getting paid?

to say it does?

Your thoughts please...

39 Answers

  • ?
    Lv 7
    6 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Why do you want others to do your thinking for you? I am sure you are smart enough to KNOW once you accumulate enough knowledge and facts on the matter.

    For your information, I am not paid by anybody germaine to this subject. My income is derived from other sources. But I am taking the time out of my life to educate people as to the scam of Global Warming and Climate Change. My payment for this is that I won't have my energy bills needlessly increased and the money going to greedy slobs like Maurice Strong, Al Gore, George Soros and a host of other scammers. But even though my motive are pure and totally unselfish, do not just blindly BELIEVE what I say.

    Rather look at the facts. What has Al Gore done to benefit mankind in general? In creased awareness? Ha! Ha! A prankster jumping out from behind the bushes and saying, "Boo!" can do the same thing. That means he is scaring the bejesus out you and getting rich doing it all the while having no real substance to his scare.. And he is even proud of the fact that he lies.

    Quote by Al Gore, former U.S. vice president, and large CO2 producer: "I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis."

    Once he is caught with an outright lie, he dismisses it as a mere over-representation. Wrong! It is still a lie! So can you believe a person who consistently lies? And he has been caught in many lies.

    Not only that the basis of all the greenie argument is that CO2 is causing Global Warming and this is creating an imbalance in nature. Study this and go back in history. You don't have to go very far back, only to the 1970s.

    Life magazine of January 30, 1970, stated: “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support . . . predictions” such as: “In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution,” and “increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will affect earth’s temperature, leading to mass flooding or a new ice age.”

    Al Gore, H. H. Lamb, Paul Ehrlich, and Jimmy Hansen were among the many who were scaring us with an imminent Ice Age caused by CO2. Does that sound reasonable to you that CO2 which is only a trace of gas in our atmosphere is prevalent enough to cause both an Ice Age and Global Warming? In fact can that trace gas cause anything disastrous at all on the Earth? What would your reasoning be on this? Remember I am not getting even 1 thin dime for telling you this. But Al Gore has amassed over a Billion dollars for telling you what he thinks.

    But now let us hear from a scientist who definitely is not getting paid to promote GW or not to promote GW, in fact quite the opposite. He took a stand for real science.

    Quote by Will Happer, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy: “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism....I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect....Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”

    So really you should change your question a little bit, "Which scientists should you believe? The ones not getting paid to say human activity does not cause climate change, or the ones getting paid to say it does?"

  • 6 years ago

    There is undoubtedly changes in climate within the world that lead to global warming and cooling. There is evidence that the earth randomly gets warmer and cooler naturally and the cause for it has not been completely determined but there is no good pattern.

    One thing we do know however, is that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases can trap the heat within our atmosphere. This raises global temperatures and creates a "global warming" effect. We as humans, create greenhouse gases by burning fossil fuels. We also contribute to the diminishing of forests which would consume the carbon dioxide we produce.

    Point is, it's difficult to say how much we contribute to global warming, and how much of it is from natural causes. But one thing we know for sure, we are contributing somehow. And there are measures we can take to reduce it and slow the process. (Isn't that reason enough to be concerned about our earth??)

    **I personally would argue that we as humans have a substantial effect on global warming just due to our numbers and the many ways we contribute already. But I tried to eliminate that bias. There really isn't enough clear evidence to support it from studies.

    Source(s): Bachelor of Environmental Science
  • 6 years ago

    You should ignore both of them.

    There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.

    Democrats have again been trying to scare the American people with threats of impending doom if fossil fuel use is not stopped. Much of this recent resurgence is probably an attempt to divert public attention from the ongoing catastrophic failures of ObamaCare.

    There exists not one shred of scientific evidence that human activities are causing Earth to warm or to cool. The normal range of weather and occasional changes in the climate of Earth are not different now than at any time in history.

  • 6 years ago

    If you study history you'll see that precautionary statements about CO2 go back to the 1800s when politics wasn't involved. We had barely begun to burn much oil. Those who think there's suddenly a conspiracy to pretend CO2 is a problem are being dishonest and illogical. They can't really believe the laws of physics have changed over time to suit their ideology.

    Also, if you want to "follow the money," don't nitpick over scientists' earnings, look at the huge profits of those who think they have a lot to lose by cutting back.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    5 years ago

    global warming is not a hype. it has been an actual topic throughout the world (especially europe) for the last 2 decades. it has recently, partly because of Katrina, and Al Gore convinced America, and it has been made into a hype.. in america... that doesnt make it anyless true. teh concentration of carbon dioxide reletive to the oxigen is what keeps us alive. we all know, humans breathe o2 in and co2 out. burning fuels, also converts o2 into c02. plants do the opposite, they breathe co2 in o2 out. in the past 200 years, weve industrialised the world. beginning with brittain, then europe, the us. and nowadays China is converting into an industrial powerhouse (90% of the worlds production already comes from china) the world population has increased to 6 billion. (it was 5 billion in the 90ies) and were cutting down rainforssests by the square kilometer. anyone can imagine, if things that expel co2 increase, and that convert co2 to o2 get cut down, it is going to do SOMETHING to the air at the very least. the co2 perctage, doesnt realy affect the ability of plants to life, infact it only supports plantgrowth. the problem is, were cutting the trees down for lumber.

  • Maxx
    Lv 7
    6 years ago

    The BIG BUCKS are going to the Alarmists to the tune of BILLIONS of taxpayer funding every year. And they have been raking in all of this money every year for about 30 years already. They sure don't want this gravy train to end.

    The skeptics get paid too of course, but they only get pennies compared to the alarmists. They are not in it for the money. They are in it for the truth.

    Climate Money: The Climate Industry: $79 billion so far – trillions to come



  • Kano
    Lv 7
    6 years ago

    It is not a question of money or salary, it is a question of getting your papers published, and your career going.

    Suppose for instance you have spent two years studying the squirrels and their habits in Central Park, now you want to publish a paper on your research, you realise there is not much interest in squirrels and it might difficult to get it published, however if you slip in how climate change might be affecting the squirrels Voila it's published.

  • 6 years ago

    The ones getting paid to say Global Warming (note the capitals) is real have been busted numerous times.

    There are no scientists who are paid to say it's not real. There are just scientists who say "prove it".

  • 6 years ago

    Personally I don't trust any scientist. In my opinion they are biased towards their particular point if view. They always say we have proof and 2 years later someone has proof on the opposite side. Think about it. If your name is used in a particular area your books are going to sell. Historians and archeologists are not much better.

  • 6 years ago

    I would be more impressed if the warmists had an honest standpoint on this.

    In one breath they take the view that scientists cannot be swayed by anything but the facts but then they claim that scientists can be swayed by funding. Which is it?

    When you analyse the data more closely. The scientists that are on-message with the "consensus view" are the honest ones, they claim, and the ones off-mesage can be swayed. They can say that with a straight face and with no supporting evidence whatsoever.

  • JimZ
    Lv 7
    6 years ago

    I have learned not to "believe" anyone. Those who think they know probably don't realize how little they know. As a geologist, I have learned that climates vary a great deal. The little blip lately barely registers and trying to blame that on humans is ridiculous and politically opportunistic. It isn't a coincidence that those who "believe" in catastrophic AGW are nearly all far leftists.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.