Voices
in
Japan

poll

Scientists say human-caused global warming is exacerbating natural disasters such as fires and floods around the world, making them both more likely and more deadly. Do you agree?

61 Comments
© Japan Today

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

61 Comments
Login to comment

There seem to be no doubts any more. All the news now is how we adapt to it, not prevent it. Those who have denied it for so long and inhibited prevention bear huge responsibility and should be the ones who pay for this adaptation and incapacity. Beginning with Big Carbon.

14 ( +30 / -16 )

The topic of climate change, how human activity is affecting it, its ramifications and what can be done to tackle the issue is argued out on this site every or every other day, in discussions that go round in circles because the deniers will not leave their bubble of alternative reality no matter how many times their “theories” get picked apart with actual science. Many of them seem to have interesting views on other hot topics too. It would be nice to think they are just having a bit of fun on the internet, because the thought of them actually believing the stuff they say is quite sad and worrying.

9 ( +20 / -11 )

I'm not allowed to point out that not all scientists say that?

Which scientific institution in the world say something different?

None? that is because there is a consensus, clear and well supported by the evidence, pretending some people with poor professional skills makes this false is wrong.

There will be always people that contradict the scientific consensus without any evidence to do it, some will even have credentials, that applies to anything you can think about. That does not mean you can say there is no scientific consensus about the shape of the planet of the origin of infections.

7 ( +24 / -17 )

Of course, this would be a different story of the title read that "every scientist says".

Scientist in general are in consensus about this,

can you bring any institution in the world disagreeing with this conclusion? no? that means the title is correct as it is. The same way as saying "doctors say exercise is good for your health" even if there are some that mistakenly say the opposite.

4 ( +20 / -16 )

its capitalism and greed,hunt for profit at any cost.not "humans".

3 ( +14 / -11 )

This is obviously not a clear cut issue, as even the title asks, Do you agree, implicitly acknowledging the diverse scientific views.

-16 ( +11 / -27 )

A lot of these disasters are man made. Take these fires and with ecology you take away a link in the chain it all breaks down with a disaster. They took away human habitation from the bush and forrest who management of these area prevented devastating fires. Flooding only concern those area were humans decided to invest in population if those area did not contain such population it would not be of concern and called natural flooding. Building in these prone area makes living more easy and we take the gamble. So man made disasters should be the reference.

-7 ( +11 / -18 )

 It would be nice to think they are just having a bit of fun on the internet, because the thought of them actually believing the stuff they say is quite sad and worrying

Some are just bored and looking to be contrarian for the sake of it.

Others have had their egos tickled to the point where they compare themselves to Galileo.

This is what a lot of the ‘alternative media’ does - it can make very ordinary, often academically sub-standard people, believe they are doing what Galileo did.

A very good way to keep people watching and reading.

4 ( +14 / -10 )

This is obviously not a clear cut issue, as even the title asks, Do you agree, implicitly acknowledging the diverse scientific views.

Merely asking “Do you agree?” does not implicitly acknowldge diverse “scientific” views, but rather the potential for people to hold views that are not based on science.

4 ( +15 / -11 )

Some are just bored and looking to be contrarian for the sake of it. 

Others have had their egos tickled to the point where they compare themselves to Galileo.

For the true believers, there often seems to be a “them” that’s holding humanity to ransom - Big Guv, Big Science, Big Farmer, Big Bird - and they fancy themselves as crusaders of justice fighting the good fight against these nefarious and shadowy entities. Exciting stuff.

On the poll, six people (or, rather, six accounts) disagreeing so far.

8 ( +17 / -9 )

For the true believers, there often seems to be a “them” that’s holding humanity to ransom - Big Guv, Big Science, Big Farmer, Big Bird - and they fancy themselves as crusaders of justice fighting the good fight against these nefarious and shadowy entities. Exciting stuff

That’s an interesting take.

A lot of virtue-signaling is at work in these crusades against ‘them’.

One problem I’ve often come across is getting people to explain exactly who the ‘them’ are. I sometimes just get ‘the elites’.

Unhelpful.

7 ( +16 / -9 )

This is obviously not a clear cut issue, as even the title asks, Do you agree, implicitly acknowledging the diverse scientific views.

It is crystal clear, every institution of science in a related field shares this conclusion, the diversity in views are about details, nothing about the question asked is being debated in scientific circles. Some people do not agree with other scientific facts like the shape of the planet, that do not mean the consensus is not there, or that is wrong.

A lot of these disasters are man made

The point of the question is about the extreme degree the disasters are taking, which is also human made but indirectly by climate change. The origin does nothing to explain why the destruction and frequency are on the rise, that comes from the climatic changes.

2 ( +15 / -13 )

@Gashioni: I will have to disagree with what you are expressing. People have a right to their own opinions even if you disagree with them.

-6 ( +9 / -15 )

People have a right to their own opinions even if you disagree with them

Very true.

What is equally important is to evaluate the opinion itself.

Some seem to think that an opinion has merit merely because someone has the right to express it.

11 ( +19 / -8 )

And many opinions hold little to no value.

12 ( +20 / -8 )

Science doesn't care about "do you agree?" . Science backs up it's claims with evidence.

13 ( +18 / -5 )

@Eastmann

its capitalism and greed,hunt for profit at any cost.not "humans".

So you're saying that it would never have happened under a communist dictator?

8 ( +12 / -4 )

Science doesn't care about "do you agree?" . Science backs up it's claims with evidence.

That's true. But decisions that might be made on dealing with potential issues do require some form of agreement - that's how politics and governments work. And there is sometimes an overlap between science and politics - I'm thinking of those who take up science to follow a cause. Such causes might be "a cleaner earth" or "a healthier population".

My own opinion is that human-caused global warming is a serious problem. What I'm uncertain of is how best to deal with it. For example, one solution might be to stop all oil, gas, and coal usage from tomorrow. But what would be the consequences, especially for those living in poorer but developing countries? The wealthy can get solar panels and electric cars, but what about those whose only dream is to get a basic refrigerator and then finding out there will be no electricity to run it?

3 ( +9 / -6 )

Even if you don't agree with climate change, the solutions are something that we should be doing anyway regardless.

The solutions below are from Greenpeace, considered by some to be 'radical lefties', and yet they are pretty common sense. They will lead to a cleaner, more sustainable planet for what will soon be 10 billion people. I'd challenge anyone to diagree with them.

Keep fossil fuels in the ground

Invest in renewable energy.

Switch to sustainable transport.

Help us keep our homes cosy.

Improve farming and encourage vegan diets.

Restore nature to absorb more carbon.

Protect forests like the Amazon.

Protect the oceans.

Reduce how much people consume.

Reduce plastic.

https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/challenges/climate-change/solutions-climate-change/

4 ( +15 / -11 )

@ClippetyClop

Even if you don't agree with climate change, the solutions are something that we should be doing anyway regardless.

The solutions below are from Greenpeace, considered by some to be 'radical lefties', and yet they are pretty common sense. They will lead to a cleaner, more sustainable planet for what will soon be 10 billion people. I'd challenge anyone to diagree with them.

Keep fossil fuels in the ground - No problems with that, as long as there are viable alternatives

Invest in renewable energy - As long as it's viable

Switch to sustainable transport - That is being done - everything is going electric

Help us keep our homes cosy - This needs support from governments, as the changes needed are very expensive and a lot of people can't afford it

Improve farming and encourage vegan diets - This one I have difficulties with - humans are omnivores, not plant eaters - you would need to supplement a vegan diet with the calcium and vitamins the body needs. Also everyone being vegan is the same as having farm animals farting all over the place

Restore nature to absorb more carbon - Re-forestation should be the biggest priority

Protect forests like the Amazon - That will be difficult in what is becoming a war zone

Protect the oceans - Agree 100%... but how?

Reduce how much people consume - Not everyone is up for a HUGE lifestyle upheaval

Reduce plastic - Replace it with what? Card and paper? That means cutting forests

All very laudable ideas, but you will need to take the entire population with you... and that's neve going to happen. Not everyone is an angry millennial or teenager.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

I greatly reduced my carbon footprint since 1970.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Scientists vs random people on the internet ~o~

-1 ( +11 / -12 )

Science doesn't care about "do you agree?" . Science backs up it's claims with evidence.

THIS!

4 ( +9 / -5 )

My vote: No.

Climate change is very real. It's so real that it's been going on for hundreds of millions of years.

If you think our weather these days is hot, you wouldn't have wanted to live in any of the ages of the dinosaurs. Back then, the Earth was significantly warmer than it is now.

How warm? Average temperatures at least 20 to 30 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than now.

It turns out that this year's unusually hot weather can be attributed to last year's eruption of an undersea volcano, Hunga Tonga–Hunga Haʻapai in the South Pacific. Obviously that has nothing to do with human activity.

And undersea volcanoes have been erupting for gazillions of years.

-4 ( +16 / -20 )

It turns out that this year's unusually hot weather can be attributed to last year's eruption of an undersea volcano, 

Yet no expert shares this personal belief, not that it does anything to explain the trend that have been well characterized from many years before this one.

What makes you think the scientists of the world are all wrong and you can understand the situation better?

-1 ( +15 / -16 )

Open your mind.

Go to this link.

Read the contents of the newspaper and magazine clippings.

Take the time to do this, if you're as open-minded and rational as you claim to be.

Then, after doing so, please seriously reconsider why you're actually taking the radical environmental movement and the "man-made climate change" pushers even remotely seriously.

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/

-10 ( +8 / -18 )

My personal "favorite": When that leading environmental scientist Prince (now King) Charles said that we only have 96 months to save the world.

He said that in 2009, and 96 months is 8 years.

So that means according to His Majesty the Environmental Wizard ... we've all been dead now for 6 years.

No it doesn't.

It means that, if he's right, we passed the point of no return in 2017. Temperature rises are in positive feed back now, so even if we miraculously hit net zero emissions tomorrow, temperatures will continue to rise.

That's entirely possible.

3 ( +11 / -8 )

Open your mind.

Go to this link.

Is your link to a primary scientific source? with well controlled variables, a method described in detail and a process that can be checked for flaws?

No?

That means your evidence do not pass the minimum requirements to be considered. Anybody can say whatever they want, the difficult part is to prove it objectively with evidence and being able to surpass criticism from specialists whose job is to examine evidence.

Your link gives false references, includes "failures" caused by changes of human activity produced by the warnings of scientist or "predictions" made by people without any actual authority and that ran contrary to what the actual consensus was at the time.

In short it only helps proving that actual evidence do not support your claim so this is the best you could bring.

2 ( +12 / -10 )

Now go back to the link I posted and do the other 40 or so wildly WRONG environmental-doomsday predictions.

Still invalid since you have not even tried to argue how it is supposed to be valid to include people that contradicted the current scientific consensus, or failures that happened precisely because people listened to the warnings and corrected the predicted course.

Again, what makes you think you understand the situation better than the scientists of the world if you have not even been able to present any rational argument why this prediction is wrong. No argument yet.

2 ( +11 / -9 )

Personal belief.

The moment you can't even argue against the multiple criticisms of your position it becomes clear you don't have any argument so your only exit is to pretend the valid arguments that disproved your point are opinions when in reality everything can be easily corroborated.

Open your mind, and read a little:

Your reference is completley misrepresented, it does NOT blames global warming on the eruption, it only says it increases the chances of the predicted outcome to happen.

Or quoted from the article

increasing the chance of at least one of the next 5 years exceeding 1.5 °C by 7%

Why present the reference when it only makes it obvious how you tried to misrepresent it?

I could go on and on with a lot more links.

Please do, it is not very common for someone to disprove their own claims so strongly with a reference, you are doing a great job proving the opposite of what you said.

2 ( +13 / -11 )

Just like all wealth and riches, conveniences and luxuries are not "advancement" nor "progress", it's stolen from someone or some time in the future.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Science doesn't care about "do you agree?" . Science backs up it's claims with evidence.

That's true. But decisions that might be made on dealing with potential issues do require some form of agreement - that's how politics and governments work.

Have politicians and governments ever made the right decision, that was right for the people (rather than for their backers)?

Just look at how they handled the pandemic, while pretending to base everything on "the science". Everything they did was the opposite of what they should have done.

-2 ( +10 / -12 )

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/

Interesting.

Here are some more random links:

https://www.science.org/content/article/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming

"Seven older models missed the mark by as much as 0.1°C per decade. But the accuracy of five of those forecasts improved enough to match observations when the scientists adjusted a key input to the models: how much climate-changing pollution humans have emitted over the years. That includes greenhouse gases and aerosols, tiny particles that reflect sunlight. Pollution levels hinge on a host of unpredictable factors. Emissions might rise or fall because of regulations, technological advances, or economic booms and busts.

To take one example, Hausfather points to a famous 1988 model overseen by then–NASA scientist James Hansen. The model predicted that if climate pollution kept rising at an even pace, average global temperatures today would be approximately 0.3°C warmer than they actually are. That has helped make Hansen's work a popular target for critics of climate science.

Hausfather found that most of this overshoot was caused not by a flaw in the model's basic physics, however. Instead, it arose because pollution levels changed in ways Hansen didn't predict. For example, the model overestimated the amount of methane—a potent greenhouse gas—that would go into the atmosphere in future years. It also didn't foresee a precipitous drop in planet-warming refrigerants like some Freon compounds after international regulations from the Montreal Protocol became effective in 1989.

When Hausfather's team set pollution inputs in Hansen's model to correspond to actual historical levels, its projected temperature increases lined up with observed temperatures."

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/

"In a study accepted for publication in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, a research team led by Zeke Hausfather of the University of California, Berkeley, conducted a systematic evaluation of the performance of past climate models. The team compared 17 increasingly sophisticated model projections of global average temperature developed between 1970 and 2007, including some originally developed by NASA, with actual changes in global temperature observed through the end of 2017. The observational temperature data came from multiple sources, including NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) time series, an estimate of global surface temperature change.

The results: 10 of the model projections closely matched observations. Moreover, after accounting for differences between modeled and actual changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other factors that drive climate, the number increased to 14. The authors found no evidence that the climate models evaluated either systematically overestimated or underestimated warming over the period of their projections."

https://theconversation.com/40-years-ago-scientists-predicted-climate-change-and-hey-they-were-right-120502

"The Report lays out clearly what was known about the likely effects of increasing carbon dioxide on the climate, as well as the uncertainties. The main conclusion of the Report was direct:

We estimate the most probable warming for a doubling of CO₂ to be near 3℃ with a probable error of 1.5℃.

In the 40 years since their meeting, the annual average CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere, as measured at Mauna Loa in Hawaii, has increased by about 21%. Over the same period, global average surface temperature has increased by about 0.66℃, almost exactly what could have been expected if a doubling of CO₂ produces about 2.5℃ warming – just a bit below their best estimate. A remarkably prescient prediction."

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063

"Our results show that in private and academic circles since the late 1970s and early 1980s, ExxonMobil predicted global warming correctly and skillfully. Using established statistical techniques, we find that 63 to 83% of the climate projections reported by ExxonMobil scientists were accurate in predicting subsequent global warming. ExxonMobil’s average projected warming was 0.20° ± 0.04°C per decade, which is, within uncertainty, the same as that of independent academic and government projections published between 1970 and 2007. The average “skill score” and level of uncertainty of ExxonMobil’s climate models (67 to 75% and ±21%, respectively) were also similar to those of the independent models.

Moreover, we show that ExxonMobil scientists correctly dismissed the possibility of a coming ice age in favor of a “carbon dioxide induced ‘super-interglacial’”; accurately predicted that human-caused global warming would first be detectable in the year 2000 ± 5; and reasonably estimated how much CO2 would lead to dangerous warming."

3 ( +10 / -7 )

Science doesn't care about "do you agree?" . Science backs up it's claims with evidence.

Yes, very true. That's why I voted "no".

-1 ( +13 / -14 )

The only thing I have to say about this is, anyone who is in the hysterical side of "we are doomed" or "it is the fault of X or Y", but you have been against nuclear power, you are really not in a position to preach to anyone.

If nuclear power had been developed as it should in all the years after the Chernobyl accident, we would be in a very different place right now in terms of our dependence of fossil fuels.

2 ( +9 / -7 )

The "it was warmer in the Middle Ages" people get their evidence from. . .science? That is the funny part. "It was warmer in the dinosaur age" is what science tells us. It was also warmer when the earth was first formed. Science again.

But today science is "wrong" or "perpetuating a hoax" or "I have to wear a coat at night where I live," which is a weather report and not a climate issue.

Where do these people get their information from, then? From Fox News and other conservative "news" sources.

Global warming is here, whether man-made or not. Anyone with an IQ over 50 can figure that out, Of course the people who don't want to think for themselves will believe anything they are told.

-2 ( +8 / -10 )

I don't think any country scores below 10% when you include the "don't know"s.

My eyes are a bit tired but I think the “don’t knows” are separate:

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/rhokagcmxq/Globalism2020%20Guardian%20Climate%20and%20Lifestyle%20after%20COVID.pdf

0 ( +3 / -3 )

What I want to know is how much worse does climate change have to get before any politian in any country does something about it immediately?

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Of course I don’t agree, scientists with their PhDs and mumbo jumbo equations I don’t understand (cause I dropped out of high school), somebguys on tik tok clearly proved it’s all a big government conspiracy.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

No, there have always been floods and fires all around through all planets' and humans' history, many much worse than now. You find even fearful early stories, descriptions and paintings through all epochs, already in bible or medieval paintings, from the first documented past up to our modern TV footage etc. I guess a lot of people overestimate the significance of us human beings rather too much. Even our biggest and worst global impact ever, the two atomic bombs, is soon almost forgotten and the places again nice and filled with people.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

 I guess a lot of people overestimate the significance of us human beings rather too much. Even our biggest and worst global impact ever, the two atomic bombs, is soon almost forgotten and the places again nice and filled with people.

The scientific community of the world disagrees and can show the data to support that conclusion, they work professionally on the field and have demonstrated the models and predictions are accurate (if unfortunately too conservative at times).

What arguments or evidence can make you think you are more likely to be right when contradicting them?

-5 ( +7 / -12 )

My understanding is that Earth is a closed system; nothing except sunlight and the occasional meteorite gets in, and nothing except heat and the odd spacecraft gets out. And the thing regulating the amount of heat escaping Earth is the atmosphere. Millions of years ago Earth was a very inhospitable place with a lot of carbon in the atmosphere, not dissimilar to Venus today. But then something inexplicable (at least to me) happened: life. Carbon based organisms started to thrive and when they died their remains got consumed by the earth. For millions and millions of years this process continued, gradually taking carbon out of the atmosphere and burying it deep underground, until the planet got to a state where mammals could prosper. Then one particular species discovered fire. We spent tens of thousands of years cutting down trees which slowed the rate of atmospheric carbon reduction, but that is a mere drop in the ocean compared with what we've been up to for the last 200 years: actively digging up that trapped carbon and burning it, thus undoing millions of years of progress by pumping that carbon back where it came from - in to the atmosphere. 

That absolutely must be having an effect, and the evidence we have gathered in the last few decades shows that it absolutely is. 

Venus is a nasty place, just look at what happened to the probes the Soviets sent there. And that's Earth's future if we do not stop burning fossil fuels.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

At the rate we're going, we'll be heading into Wall-E territory soon. It's a grim future, that.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Little efforts for reducing the risk of natural disasters are overwhelmed by our demand for modernization and convenience for everyday lives.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

There seem to be no doubts any more.

There are plenty of doubts.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

A lot of these disasters are man made.

So right, John-San.

Keep in mind that there are many people who identify with man’s propensity to destroy. It’s much, much easier than creating solutions to problems.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

These climate change leaders fly around in their private jets, they use their private yachts, and have multimillion dollar homes on beachfront properties. They don’t seem to concerned about climate change, global warming or what ever new name they come up with next.

The really wealthy will always be able to insulate themselves from the effects of climate change due to their wealth. The other 99%, of which we are part of, won't.

And at some point they won't be able to either, but they'll be dead by then.

At some point you have to take responsibility for your own actions. And if 99% of people do this, and demand that the people they elect do this, then we'll be okay.

You have no idea how powerful you really are, because you are part of the most powerful mass of people in the world.

Don't vote for 'them'

2 ( +9 / -7 )

YES! Since the industrial revolution, but there was and is no other way we could be where we are today from the development point of view. And all those so called green solutions are just more damage on top of what is already there. The end of the world is near!!!! Unless we go 100% nuclear, that is the cleanest way, believe it or not!

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

Normally I would have chosen 'No' or 'I don't know', but the way this particular JT poll is phrased I have voted 'Yes', as finally someone understands people like me. Some human activities definitely add to heating and polluting the planet. I do not yet believe however, that human activity is the sole cause of the climate changing. My mind continues to collect information on this subject.

On a personal level I am angry with my government forcing me to junk my perfectly good car, even though I rarely drive it, while Russia feels free to wage total war on its neighbor by sea, air and land... .

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The climate of the Earth changes and that is a natural phenomenon. The Sun and its activity is now achieving a maximum thus it is becoming warmer on the planet.

If the Sun were experiencing a solar minimum then we would be in an ice age, no matter how much carbon dioxide and various other gases we had produced on the planet.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

If consensus was totally the way science was run, we'd be making big mistakes. Science is not consensus, it is sifting through the facts. ..... For example, for a long time stomach ulcers were, by consensus, the result of spicy food, alcohol, worry, etc.. We now know they are the bacteria H. Pylori. The consensus was WRONG! Globally the climate changes over history. The behavior or our sun far, far, has more effect than our puny efforts. Do not ruin the world's economy chasing our tail!

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

If consensus was totally the way science was run, we'd be making big mistakes.

Appeal to consensus and authority is just sophistry designed to intimidate skeptics into silence. Sometimes it works, sometimes it backfires. It'S a classic tactic when the people who use it are scared to bring the issue to open debate, instead opting for trite slogans like "the science is settled" and "97% of scientists think..." without even knowing where that figure comes from.

But consensus couldn't be wrong, right?

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

I agree. Haven't verified but it seems reasonable to believe that some scientists do say that.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Doesn't really matter though even if many scientists say it.

What we need is even just one scientist prove human-caused global warming is exacerbating natural disasters such as fires and floods around the world, making them both more likely and more deadly

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

No.

Go back and mud log samples and core samples from glaciers and get back to me.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

The climate of the Earth changes and that is a natural phenomenon. The Sun and its activity is now achieving a maximum thus it is becoming warmer on the planet.

Solar activity is not correlated with the degree of change that comes from climate change, that theory has been already disproved completely.

If consensus was totally the way science was run, we'd be making big mistakes. Science is not consensus, it is sifting through the facts

You have a terribly wrong understanding about what scientific consensus is, it just mean that everybody that looks at the evidence and analyze it with a valid method then reaches the same conclusions. It is not "the way science is run" but what happens when science is run properly and enough evidence is available about something, and that applies to all fields.

You want to change the consensus? present evidence that refutes it, without that evidence it is still the best possible conclusion the experts of the world can reach.

Appeal to consensus and authority is just sophistry designed to intimidate skeptics into silence.

No, it is not, it is just recognizing the fact that science is the best available tool we have to understand reality, but obviously those that want to keep believing in things demonstrated as false feel strongly against it, it is not easy to defend something after the scientists of the world says it is wrong, so the only option is to pretend everybody must be wrong and their professional opinion just as valid as the guy that made that youtube video.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

You have a terribly wrong understanding about what scientific consensus is, it just mean that everybody that looks at the evidence and analyze it with a valid method then reaches the same conclusions. It is not "the way science is run" but what happens when science is run properly and enough evidence is available about something, and that applies to all fields.

"valid method" and "run properly" is a label you give to any study that gives you the conclusion you like. If you don't like the conclusion, it automatically becomes "invalid method" and "run improperly".

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

"valid method" and "run properly" is a label you give to any study that gives you the conclusion you like.

No, that is completely false, the validity of data and methods is something that the scientific method makes great efforts to define well in advance from them being used in research, this claim is again just an excuse people what to use when the fabricated data or misleading invalid methods are discarded and the forced conclusions they wanted to push are recognized as invalid because of that, but that is completely desirable.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

There are fewer hurricanes making landfall in the US for example.

Some scientists are wrong.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

There are fewer hurricanes making landfall in the US for example.

Some scientists are wrong.

Not the ones that have said the intensity and even the frequency of the hurricanes is predicted to become higher, the same as fires and other kinds of disasters.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

It may be true that most scientists believe that climate change is real, and is caused by man-made activity.

But, I saw a video on YouTube by a guy in a backwards ball cap and sunglasses talking while he was driving. And, he says it's a hoax.

So, who knows who to believe???

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites