AGW deniers, what other things supported by mainstream science do you not believe because you don't want to?

Question

AGW deniers, what other things supported by mainstream science do you not believe because you don't want to?

Answer 1

An obvious example is the greenhouse effect.  Several deniers here have said that it doesn't exist.  Several have also said they don't believe evolution.

Answer 2

Fine, I'll play. Global warming is the next Y2K: a bunch of hype that will amount to nothing, and that we'll all have a good laugh about a few years from now. I also do not believe in evolution. I hope that made your day.

Answer 3

You'd better research the name: Christopher Monckton of Brenchley before you go claiming scientific evidence of global warming.  He's examined the computer model used by the UN where all of these "statistics" came from and discovered that the programmer inflated the numbers to skew the data.

He's not alone.  Also search 32,000 Scientists to read about that many scientists who've signed a declaration that GW is bogus science.

Then tell me how many SUVs have been driving around on Mars, Venus, Saturn, etc.  Why's that you ask?  Because NASA has recorded elevated temperatures on those planets too.  Gee what does Earth have in common with those planets....hmmmm....oh yes, the SUN!

If that's not enough temperatures have been reading lower than average over the last couple of years.  Where were all the Hurricanes that were supposed to occur last year?  They predicted there would be more than ever.  Not even one last year.

Scientific evidence my a**!

Answer 4

But AGW is not supported by mainstream science and never has been. The only so called scientists that have even put their name on it were Hanson and that idiot partner of his that came up with the hockey stick thing. All the real scientists have petitioned the ICCC to remove their names from the document or insert their dissenting opinion as part of the report. Over two thirds of the scientists whose names appear on the report have petitioned to have their names removed from it and listed as dissenting against any conclusions the report may make from the faulty and doctored data that the report is based on.

I see you have your witch hunter uniform on today and are out looking for non believers to dunk or burn like the rest of your fellow believers in magic.

Answer 5

James Early - I thought you said mainstream science doesn't support AGW, so what is all this...

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positi...

http://www.geosociety.org/positions/posi...

http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_...

http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.a...

Don't go away mad...

Ozzie - Christopher Monckton of Brenchley was trained as a journalist. It's pretty sad when you think a journalist by trade trumps science.

Answer 6

I would like to point to eugenics.

All the mainstream scientists of the day bought into that as well.  That didn't work out to well now did it.

How about the impending ice age in the 1970s?  Your man Hansen was one of the big proponents for that one also.

Answer 7

I guess this is a rhetorical question but I decided to answer anyway.  

I was skeptical of the ozone "hole" being caused by chloroflourocarbons.  I realize there is some science behind it.  I know one flourine molecule for example can "destroy" many ozone molecules.  I remain unconvinced.  

I must confess that I did believe acid rain.  It made sense that factories emitting sulfur compounds increased the acidity of rain which fell on forests converting them to bogs which are more acid tolerant, but alas it turns out that the harmful effects were grossly exaggerated.  

I was skeptical of Y2K, but I think many mainstream scientists were as well.  

I believe that it is likely that many dinosaurs, especially theropods such as velociraptors and T rex likely evolved from birds rather than the other way around which is what seems to be the mainstream.  There is a bias that birds are more advanced and could not have evolved into theropods.  In fact I think birds could have evolved from early theropods and then reverted to terrestrial after acquiring increased respiration, muscular,  and cooling systems that are requirements of flight.  

I believe it quite likely that chimps evovled from bipeds.  This is clearly out of the mainstream.  Most paleoanthropologist assume the latest human chimp common ancestor were knucklewalkers because gorillas are and they would have to have evovled it convergently.  Still there is good evidence that we never had a knucklewalker in our ancestry and there is good evidence that chimps have a biped in thiers.  I won't go into further details, but I am out of the mainstream in that belief, but I am only an amateur paleontologist.

I saw two UFO's over Yakima Washington in 1980.  At the risk of totally ruining my credibility, for me, the search for the actual truth is paramount.  another soldier and I saw two at one time at night and they exhibited accelleration that was not possible unless they had technology that was far above anything that I am aware of and I am an engineer (geological) so I think I know more about that sort of thing than most people not to mention I was an expert on every millitary aircraft we had (at least that wasn't top secret).  So I am pretty well convinced that there is extraterrestrial intelligence visiting us which is probably out of the mainstream.

Clearly I don't believe things simply because mainstream science says so and I don't think others should either.  I may not be right but at least I have my own opinion.

Answer 8

Remember, mainstream scientists also supported Eugenics, and agreed that the world was flat. A mere 20 years ago, there was a consensus that we were heading into an ice age, which, by the way, we are.

Answer 9

I would like to add some relevant commentary.

There is no question, given what we know of the size and composition of the universe, that it is more likely than not that life exists elsewhere.  If we are really unlucky, we are the first or the last or something in the nature of things makes sentient life a very rare occurrence.  But probably not.

However, given what we know of the size and composition of the universe, it is extremely unlikely that we will contact, or be contacted by other sentient life.  That’s just the disappointing nature of things.  I believe it was Clarke who postulated this.

There are any number of atmospheric optical phenomena that can look like flying objects.  So Occam’s razor instructs us to simply accept that the (scientifically determined) quite likely cause is to be taken over the (scientifically determined) extremely unlikely cause.

What's more likely?  Aliens secretly watching us in collusion with the US Govt. in area 51 or car lights reflected and focused off an inversion giving the illusion of hypervelocity?

But this doesn’t help people with their human failings, their “belief” in something just because they “think so”.

We all suffer from this because we are all human.  So, I trust science.  If you think about it, it’s really the only impartial, uncorrupted institution in the world dedicated to truth.