Do all scientists believe alike? Are they all in agreement?

Question

It seems like everytime I read something about some scientific discovery not everyone agrees with him.

Some call them way off base, others crazy, then others say he is right? So who do you believe?

HOw many opinions have we heard about Global warming?

Who's right?

Answer 1

No they don't. It would seem that if people didn't think differently science wouldn't exist at all. Science is the act of proving or disproving a theory until it becomes fact or fallacy. Many things like global warming are common sense, but there have to be the ones that don't believe it to balance the equation. We have obviously done a tremendous amount of damage to our planet and the problem is growing exponentially. There is change coming. The idea of going green is spreading pretty fast, but I worry not enough.

http://www.unep.org/BILLIONTREECAMPAIGN/

Answer 2

Scientists are not united, and it is also typical for engineers to disagree.

Global warming is a special case.  Some scientists have jobs to protect for important areas they want to research, much more important to them than their opinion on global warming, so they say things they probably know better are not strictly true.  THe measures taken to combat global warming do have severe economic consequences.

But it doesn't take a scientist to notice that the arctic ice cap is retreating at 8% per decade, or to see  1000 new lakes in the Northwest Arctic Borough in Alaska in the past 10 years.  It probably does take a scientist to calculate that we have doubled the CO2 content in the atmosphere in the past 200 years, and it definitely takes several scientists in various disciplines to figure out that 80 times that much greenhouse gas is trapped in the permafrost in the far north, that same permafrost which is now melting.

And of course there are some pseudo-scientific arguments that the excess CO2 will reflect heat away from the earth--Which is true, but the sun puts out most of its energy in visible light which is absorbed on the surface and re-emitted as heat where the CO2 will reflect it back at us.

There is a remedy, even at this late date, but once the permafrost has released its gases there is no solution.  Core samples from the arctic ocean bottom indicate the average temp there  some 70 millions of years ago was about 70 F.  In fact there are probably many remedies.  There is restraint on our industry, and there is the nuclear winter option to cool things down (yes, using some nuclear weapons against deserted land could blow enough dust into the upper atmosphere to cool things down for a few years and keep the permafrost frozen.  Krakatoa actually did that in 1883 and affected the world's temperature until 1888).

So, yes it is normal for scientists to disagree until the mass of data has a clear indication, but there are all sorts of apparently unrelated facts pointing in one direction.  For example, in the 1950s, it was permissible to move heavy equipment across ice roads (roads built by pouring water over snow) in National Petroleum Reserve Alaska (then called Naval Petroleum Reserve number 4) for 200 days out of the year.  Now, the permissible ice road window is 87 days.  There is no movement at other times of the year because tundra is very slow to recover.  There are still tracks from the cat trains used in WWII to bring equipment to sites where 41 emergency landing fields were constructed for lend-lease planse on their way to Russia.

Yes there are scientists who say this and that about global warming, but I doubt if any of the naysayers would get much audience in Alaska, where it is really noticeable, and certainly not with the King Crab population down by 90%.  But wasn't salmon fishing closed for the year 2008 (and likely for 2009) along the entire West Coast of the lower 48?  The loss of species upon which we depend should be a real poke in the ribs from Mother Nature.

Answer 3

It seems like they make so many mistakes it is difficult to know when it is a real truth.

Such as the miracle clock that dated this piece of tool as several thousand or million years ago.  Turned out it was the heal of a shoe made a few years before.

Their equipment is even flawed.

Answer 4

Truth is most scientists are very biased so if one makes a discovery the others are like "yeeeeeah right, that aint possible, 'cause if it was we'd knowabout it already"

The only way to find out who is right is to either continue researching it or wait for what they think will happen.

Answer 5

Why should they agree?

There are many religious scholars and philosophers, and they all have their own way of thinking and many even have different "schools" of thought, with many different even contradictory outcomes.

So too with other sciences and studies. They all see the same thing but see it differently.

We all know the tempeture of the planet is rising, but you may see it as humans' work as polluters, or you can attribute it to a cyclical event. And the same to all things in this world.

To properly form your own opinion, the best course of action is to study what each one says, see what field they are specialize (A scientist who is an anthropologist or a biologist may not be a source of reliable authority on climate sciences, but may be billed as a respectable scientist, distorting the truth to the reciever) See what kind of standing he has in the scientific community (i.e. A proffesor from Harvard or MIT is generally more highly regarded than those from Oakten Community College) then see what type of methods he is using to form his opinion (sitting in his ivory tower spewing thoughts, or in the field doing systematic tests and analyzation of the data throught tried and tested  methods etc.)

And finally, remember, its all THEORY, anyone can disagree, and they are not wrong until disproven. Both are right at the same time (using quantum mechanics theory to say that they are both true until proven otherwise)

Answer 6

No, they will never agree.  Highly educated people have to have proof for themselves, and often given the same evidence, due to their own experiences, they will draw a manifesto of conclusions.