How truthful is "The Day After Tomorrow"

[Blink4567 238]

After everything that has been going throughout the world and within the US alone in the past year; how close is this Science Fiction movie to the truth? We have many mainstream theories on "Global Warming" "Plate Shifting" etc... but what about the whole latter? Wouldn't a FULL CLIMATE change explain everything thats going on? I mean in Christianity yes, we have a complete shutdown and gleaning of the earth, but what about just a huge change? The movie itself talks about the stream changing due to the polar ice caps melting and the lack of salt within our oceans, but what about this actually being the case?

And this is interesting as well... http://www.huffingto...3409037.html . That was just what came up after a random search.

Here is a bit of scientific evidence to back it up... http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Being what humans are factoring into their research is ourselves, it is actually moot. We aren't as big of a factor as we would like to believe. The earth itself changes overtime, and humans actually only contribute to a very small scale percentage, even if we'd like to believe otherwise. We don't really make that big of a difference on the grand scale of things. The earth was made for us to live on it, and is geared for us to be here. Thats what scientists forget when they do their numbers. Rather you believe in "The Darwin Theory" or "Christianity" or even just "mass EVOlutionism" we were meant to be here. So, is it inevitable? Yes, it can't be stopped. But all we can do is plan to know what we can do as humans to survive. Just like we have done for the entire existance of humanity.

What do you think? And what Grand Scale evidence is there to back it up? I believe Global warming is due to the sun and not pollution. This is proven through Thermoldynamics, and the fact that the rotation of solar system is also moving us closer to the sun itself. Later on the shift will change back tot where we once started in out rotation.

Edited June 10, 2013 by Jessem

[Pop It and Shove It 742]

After everything that has been going throughout the world and within the US alone in the past year; how close is this Science Fiction movie to the truth? We have many mainstream theories on "Global Warming" "Plate Shifting" etc... but what about the whole latter? Wouldn't a FULL CLIMATE change explain everything thats going on? I mean in Christianity yes, we have a complete shutdown and gleaning of the earth, but what about just a huge change? The movie itself talks about the stream changing due to the polar ice caps melting and the lack of salt within our oceans, but what about this actually being the case?

And this is interesting as well... http://www.huffingto...3409037.html . That was just what came up after a random search.

Here is a bit of scientific evidence to back it up... http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Being what humans are factoring into their research is ourselves, it is actually moot. We aren't as big of a factor as we would like to believe. The earth itself changes overtime, and humans actually only contribute to a very small scale percentage, even if we'd like to believe otherwise. We don't really make that big of a difference on the grand scale of things. The earth was made for us to live on it, and is geared for us to be here. Thats what scientists forget when they do their numbers. Rather you believe in "The Darwin Theory" or "Christianity" or even just "mass EVOlutionism" we were meant to be here. So, is it inevitable? Yes, it can't be stopped. But all we can do is plan to know what we can do as humans to survive. Just like we have done for the entire existance of humanity.

What do you think? And what Grand Scale evidence is there to back it up? I believe Global warming is due to the sun and not pollution. This is proven through Thermoldynamics, and the fact that the rotation of solar system is also moving us closer to the sun itself. Later on the shift will change back tot where we once started in out rotation.

Pollution probably plays a minor role but scientists can't agree on climate change because there's so many other factors and little unquestionable facts. We don't really understand how the inner workings of the planet works which is why there's such an uproar about fracking. The only thing we do know is that the climate of the planet is ever changing and it may even be responsible for the extinction of some species in the past but that's life...when Mother Earth thinks you've had your turn, it's time for somebody else's

Mankind is but a grain of sand on the beach of life when you think about it, we haven't really achieved anything in survival terms, nor are we a notably species. There probably will be a major climate disaster in our lives (and probably because the governments tamper with what they shouldn't) but I couldn't careless really. We didn't exactly look after the planet when we had a chance to.

[Blink4567 238]

Pollution probably plays a minor role but scientists can't agree on climate change because there's so many other factors and little unquestionable facts. We don't really understand how the inner workings of the planet works which is why there's such an uproar about fracking. The only thing we do know is that the climate of the planet is ever changing and it may even be responsible for the extinction of some species in the past but that's life...when Mother Earth thinks you've had your turn, it's time for somebody else's

Mankind is but a grain of sand on the beach of life when you think about it, we haven't really achieved anything in survival terms, nor are we a notably species. There probably will be a major climate disaster in our lives (and probably because the governments tamper with what they shouldn't) but I couldn't careless really. We didn't exactly look after the planet when we had a chance to.

I respectively disagree. Humanity actually hasn't actually made much of a dent in the way the earth is as much as we think. I personally think we only effect our own inner world. We pollute cities, we trash natural places (that we inhabit), and even spill natural resources into natural resources. I'll get backlash for this, but BP's disaster wasn't a disaster to the environment. It was a disaster to us! We couldn't fish, make money, or even boat because of the oil. Yes it effected wildlife, but when we realize that the oil came from the depths of the ocean in the first place, we will see it differently and have more understanding that it is meant t be used. But the thing is WE are the most effected. The earth will take care of itself, its pretty strong. The products we use are all of the earth or atmosphere. There isn't a product that isn't used that we didn't get from the earth or space. Like you said were not as "important" as we think. The earth is such an amazing planet that we aren't actually hurting it, were just disrespecting it actually. All this climate change is just apart of it's cycles... your right we don't know much about the core, but the main point is, we will never know everything about this miraculous and elemental beauty. Trust me when I say, The Earth was made for us, its the ultimate program for life. But life changes constantly!

Edited June 10, 2013 by Jessem

[Setton 8,729]

After everything that has been going throughout the world and within the US alone in the past year; how close is this Science Fiction movie to the truth? We have many mainstream theories on "Global Warming" "Plate Shifting" etc... but what about the whole latter? Wouldn't a FULL CLIMATE change explain everything thats going on? I mean in Christianity yes, we have a complete shutdown and gleaning of the earth, but what about just a huge change? The movie itself talks about the stream changing due to the polar ice caps melting and the lack of salt within our oceans, but what about this actually being the case?

And this is interesting as well... http://www.huffingto...3409037.html . That was just what came up after a random search.

Here is a bit of scientific evidence to back it up... http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Being what humans are factoring into their research is ourselves, it is actually moot. We aren't as big of a factor as we would like to believe. The earth itself changes overtime, and humans actually only contribute to a very small scale percentage, even if we'd like to believe otherwise. We don't really make that big of a difference on the grand scale of things. The earth was made for us to live on it, and is geared for us to be here. Thats what scientists forget when they do their numbers. Rather you believe in "The Darwin Theory" or "Christianity" or even just "mass EVOlutionism" we were meant to be here. So, is it inevitable? Yes, it can't be stopped. But all we can do is plan to know what we can do as humans to survive. Just like we have done for the entire existance of humanity.

What do you think? And what Grand Scale evidence is there to back it up? I believe Global warming is due to the sun and not pollution. This is proven through Thermoldynamics, and the fact that the rotation of solar system is also moving us closer to the sun itself. Later on the shift will change back tot where we once started in out rotation.

You seem to have that backwards. The Earth is not designed for us and geared for us to live on it. Rather we are geared to live on the Earth.

Given that you think current warming is dues to a closer sun (source please), I assume you can explain the runaway increase since the industrial revolution?

As for us only making a small difference, you're making the same mistake AGW deniers always do; It doesn't matter if we only contribute 5% of global CO2 output. The natural system is in equilibrium; sinks balance sources. If we add 5% more CO2 but don't increase sinks by 5%, equilibrium is lost and concentrations rise. While we may only be responsible for 5% of gross output, I'd estimate we're responsible for >90% of the surplus.

[Ashotep 13,885]

I agree the earth goes through natural changes, man wasn't around to cause the Permian extinction or others but we are greatly helping global warming along. If we had been around to contribute to the warming of the planet that caused the Permian extinction nothing would of survived.

[runekazter 6]

I respectively disagree. Humanity actually hasn't actually made much of a dent in the way the earth is as much as we think. I personally think we only effect our own inner world. We pollute cities, we trash natural places (that we inhabit), and even spill natural resources into natural resources. I'll get backlash for this, but BP's disaster wasn't a disaster to the environment. It was a disaster to us! We couldn't fish, make money, or even boat because of the oil. Yes it effected wildlife, but when we realize that the oil came from the depths of the ocean in the first place, we will see it differently and have more understanding that it is meant t be used. But the thing is WE are the most effected. The earth will take care of itself, its pretty strong. The products we use are all of the earth or atmosphere. There isn't a product that isn't used that we didn't get from the earth or space. Like you said were not as "important" as we think. The earth is such an amazing planet that we aren't actually hurting it, were just disrespecting it actually. All this climate change is just apart of it's cycles... your right we don't know much about the core, but the main point is, we will never know everything about this miraculous and elemental beauty. Trust me when I say, The Earth was made for us, its the ultimate program for life. But life changes constantly!

So we only trash the places we inhabit? but man inhabits the entire globe now in mass. Global wide deforestation and pollution have zero impact? We have caused dust bowls, droughts, monsoons and have caused numreous species to go extinct just in our recorded history. Also there is research that we have no idea of the impact on our planet such as HAARP and nanotechnologies. I agree the earth has cycles, but that does not mean we aren't affecting those cycles. I have heard two theroies to the possible affect of our ways. 1. The Earth's cooling cycle will break down thus making it tropical conditions everywhere or 2. The instant ice age will trigger like in the movie. Who cares if we are wrong. Can we afford to do nothing if we are right? There is a growing majority of the science community in agreement we are affecting things. The Earth is not moving closer to the sun but further from and yes it has cycles to (the rotation and the sun.) Unless you do not believe the universe is expanding.

[Mikko-kun 1,026]

Cut forest = increase wind = increase tornadoes and such, also probably increase tsunami if wind has part in their birth.

Bee kills are allegedly human-caused, thanks dear chem-addict agriculture industry, I so love your products...

Bee kills = flowers and fruits go down

Those ain't small shizz... no sir. I dont know what to believe about the climate change thing, dont know how much part we have in it but I heard Koch (the major USA:n oil company or such) has invested a lot to support the deniers of climate warming thing. Bloggers, politicians, you name it... Koch admitted it. Hundreds of millions. But who would benefit from spreading the rumor of climate warming that'd be false, that I find harder to answer. Dont see a potential culprit there. Except rich corporate nihilists, dont underestimate them. Seems like it's all thanks to corporationism of vanity. Big corporations.

But finding culprits is just one thing. They ain't innocent lil' angels for sure, and they dont deserve to be treated like that, but the first priority is for us to be aware of what's our earth like. It's the first step. To ask how things affect each other. Regarding that, I think one big question is the earth cycles as runekazter said. Especially the alleged ice age cycle and what triggers it. I guess geologists have established more of a fact and I ain't refuting it, just interested in what'd cause it. I can think of some things that'd cause a global warming easily, but global cooling... maybe by blocking the sun for long enough, well enough. Clouds reflect the light sun manages to cast to earth back to us instead of letting that light be reflected back to space, so they're partly responsible for the warming, but just as well they also block a good part of the incoming light. A two-folded thing so I dont think we can blame only clouds unless there were periods when the whole planet was more or less clouded, especially in the warmer areas. Perhaps times when we had a lot of vegetation, because deserts sure dont produce clouds unless I'm mistaken, I might very well be but just doesn't make sense they would.. what's there to produce a cloud? Vegetation and animals exhume water so they produce them.

[Blink4567 238]

Wow, so many people here are completely mislead by the current "understanding" of what the earth is for. It was made for life! WE ARE LIFE! Global warming is a very very small part of what is happening in the world, and we surely aren't a main cause in it. Changes are occuring, and you believe what you want, but Al Gore was wrong. Most of you humans like to believe, or are taught, that we are such a huge thing. lol, were like ants on a hill, creating our cities, towns, and places. But if the world so chose, it could easily take us out. Get out of your small minded thinking, and take a closer look at our earth that was made for life and us. Not much will get done on a message board like this, but what I can do is make you think. Which I have . Perspective people, take a minute to get out from behind your keyboards and look outside. My Job is done here!

[Blink4567 238]

So we only trash the places we inhabit? but man inhabits the entire globe now in mass. Global wide deforestation and pollution have zero impact? We have caused dust bowls, droughts, monsoons and have caused numreous species to go extinct just in our recorded history. Also there is research that we have no idea of the impact on our planet such as HAARP and nanotechnologies. I agree the earth has cycles, but that does not mean we aren't affecting those cycles. I have heard two theroies to the possible affect of our ways. 1. The Earth's cooling cycle will break down thus making it tropical conditions everywhere or 2. The instant ice age will trigger like in the movie. Who cares if we are wrong. Can we afford to do nothing if we are right? There is a growing majority of the science community in agreement we are affecting things. The Earth is not moving closer to the sun but further from and yes it has cycles to (the rotation and the sun.) Unless you do not believe the universe is expanding.

Runekatzer,

The earth is about 70% water correct? We don't inhabit as much as you think.

[Blink4567 238]

You seem to have that backwards. The Earth is not designed for us and geared for us to live on it. Rather we are geared to live on the Earth.

Given that you think current warming is dues to a closer sun (source please), I assume you can explain the runaway increase since the industrial revolution?

As for us only making a small difference, you're making the same mistake AGW deniers always do; It doesn't matter if we only contribute 5% of global CO2 output. The natural system is in equilibrium; sinks balance sources. If we add 5% more CO2 but don't increase sinks by 5%, equilibrium is lost and concentrations rise. While we may only be responsible for 5% of gross output, I'd estimate we're responsible for >90% of the surplus.

I couldn't find any data that has been released as of yet. You'll find it in your own "Unbiased" rsearch

[Blink4567 238]

So we only trash the places we inhabit? but man inhabits the entire globe now in mass. Global wide deforestation and pollution have zero impact? We have caused dust bowls, droughts, monsoons and have caused numreous species to go extinct just in our recorded history. Also there is research that we have no idea of the impact on our planet such as HAARP and nanotechnologies. I agree the earth has cycles, but that does not mean we aren't affecting those cycles. I have heard two theroies to the possible affect of our ways. 1. The Earth's cooling cycle will break down thus making it tropical conditions everywhere or 2. The instant ice age will trigger like in the movie. Who cares if we are wrong. Can we afford to do nothing if we are right? There is a growing majority of the science community in agreement we are affecting things. The Earth is not moving closer to the sun but further from and yes it has cycles to (the rotation and the sun.) Unless you do not believe the universe is expanding.

Runekazer, I did say say we have a very smalll impact, not 0 impact. Quote correctly please... What you are explaing in the earths cooling cycle is NATURAL! Our science community, for the most part, isn't even close to becoming at it's peak. Our generation, maybe the next though, will die out without being close to what we think we know.

[The Silver Thong 4,364]

We are killing the oceans that control the weather. BP oil rig, the great garbage patch, coral reefs disapearing, species going extinct left and right polar ice caps shrinking with Russia using it as a dumping ground, nuclear power plant fails due to human error or natural disaster. Huricanes sunamis washing millions of tons of tox waste out to sea. Third world nations using the ocean as land fills for billions.

Naa people have no effect what so ever.

[Blink4567 238]

We are killing the oceans that control the weather. BP oil rig, the great garbage patch, coral reefs disapearing, species going extinct left and right polar ice caps shrinking with Russia using it as a dumping ground, nuclear power plant fails due to human error or natural disaster. Huricanes sunamis washing millions of tons of tox waste out to sea. Third world nations using the ocean as land fills for billions.

Naa people have no effect what so ever.

Havne't seen you in a long time!!! Hope you've been ok ST

And to the comment, we do make a small impact, although this may seem huge to us, It's nothing to the earth! Thats my point, our perspective is too small...

[Setton 8,729]

I couldn't find any data that has been released as of yet. You'll find it in your own "Unbiased" rsearch

So you have no data, no theory to replace AGW and apparently little grounding in science.

Forgive me if I don't take you too seriously.

[Br Cornelius 6,437]

So you have no data, no theory to replace AGW and apparently little grounding in science.

Forgive me if I don't take you too seriously.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

The earth was created for life Says it all really.

Br Cornelius

[Doug1029 7,625]

Pollution probably plays a minor role but scientists can't agree on climate change because there's so many other factors and little unquestionable facts.

There is very little disagreement among scientists in general and climatologists in particular that humans are warming the planet and the mechanism for that is CO2 fertilization of the atmosphere. Check the graph on page 23 of the article below. Publishing climatologists are over 97% in agreement. Other scientific fields are over 90% in agreement.

Doran, P. T. and M. K. Zimmerman. 2011. Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. EOS 90(3):22-23.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO030002/pdf

It took me less than two minutes to find this article. Try doing a little research on the topic.

We don't really understand how the inner workings of the planet works which is why there's such an uproar about fracking.

There's always something more to investigate in science. We don't AND NEVER WILL know it all. But to let that keep us from acting on what we do know, is a complete travesty of the investigative process. As scientists, we have an obligation to make the world better - it's part of the canons of our professional societies. We choose the findings we like and ignore those we don't at our peril.

What the general public knows about fracking comes mostly from the fictional drama "Gasland." Even the author has said it's not accurate and was written only to spark a public discussion/debate on oil and gas. It has done that. Now if we could just get a few facts into the discussion.

The only thing we do know is that the climate of the planet is ever changing and it may even be responsible for the extinction of some species in the past but that's life...when Mother Earth thinks you've had your turn, it's time for somebody else's

The climate is always changing and always will. But there's something different in the mix - us. We are now the driving force behind climate change.

Mankind is but a grain of sand on the beach of life when you think about it, we haven't really achieved anything in survival terms, nor are we a notably species. There probably will be a major climate disaster in our lives (and probably because the governments tamper with what they shouldn't) but I couldn't careless really. We didn't exactly look after the planet when we had a chance to.

When climate change knocks at your door, it may be literally that - knocking - we just had two F5 tornados hit Oklahoma in eleven days! They knocked down major parts of two cities. As I write this, Colorado is under assault from four major fires aggravated by unseasonably hot, dry conditions. And the heat dome that caused the droughts over the last two years in Oklahoma, Texas and New Mexico is reforming; we could be back in drought conditions by the Fourth of July. And just today I saw a paper describing the effects of sulfate aerosols that created the Sahel drought. Price increases caused by crop failures have already shown up in the grocery stores. The three-year food reserve the US had back in the 60s is gone. If you don't care, you will. Climate change is upon us.

Doug

[Blink4567 238]

So you have no data, no theory to replace AGW and apparently little grounding in science.

Forgive me if I don't take you too seriously.

Not a problem

[sepulchrave 721]

Nice post, Doug1o29, as usual.

Humanity actually hasn't actually made much of a dent in the way the earth is...

At least when using the primary definition of ``dent'' (i.e. a ``depression in a surface'') this statement is literally true; the Earth has an average radius of about 6371 km, and the deepest hole Humans have dug is only about 12.3 km.

[Myles 14,948]

Runekatzer,

The earth is about 70% water correct? We don't inhabit as much as you think.

You don't think we affect the oceans?

I think you misunderstand the impact we have on this planet. Of course the planet could reclaim what it has lost, but not in the short term.

[Raptor Witness 2,473]

Without a doubt one of the more interesting threads that we've seen here. The NSA must be contributing.

Okay, so we have a few thoughtful people.

I've had two dreams about the day after, and neither followed a fictional line that I've seen before.

One I have shared here, I believe. It was fascinating, because it was a world that I would not have expected.

The one thing that they both had in common, however was a true spirit of cooperation, Among the survivors.

In the first dream, I Did not see or could not tell what had caused the devastation, But I could speculate that it was disease, Because it's the only thing that could easily explain what I saw.

In the second, I had a guide who showed me, but I would not care to share that one. Not that I want to keep it hidden from anyone, but it scared me very much. In every dream I've ever had that included a guide, they have always come true.

[Blink4567 238]

You don't think we affect the oceans?

I think you misunderstand the impact we have on this planet. Of course the planet could reclaim what it has lost, but not in the short term.

We do, but just not as much as we allow ourselves to believe. I think you underestimate our planet

Edited June 30, 2013 by Jessem

[Rlyeh 17,595]

Runekazer, I did say say we have a very smalll impact, not 0 impact. Quote correctly please... What you are explaing in the earths cooling cycle is NATURAL! Our science community, for the most part, isn't even close to becoming at it's peak. Our generation, maybe the next though, will die out without being close to what we think we know.

Your posts seem to imply you've separated the ecosystem from the earth, so with that if we completely wipe out life the earth itself could have suffered little damage.

[Blink4567 238]

Your posts seem to imply you've separated the ecosystem from the earth, so with that if we completely wipe out life the earth itself could have suffered little damage.

Not at all. I've completely taken into account of our eco-system. What most people on this thread are doing is taking into account only what we know scientifically atm. Which isn't much. Science has to come to many conclusions that benefit or even satisfy those who fund their research. I believe that most of what we get from alot of scientists now a days are either wrong or they are rushed to apease those backing them. Plus, sometimes we may even find that their conclusions are ushered towards more of what the investors want, than what is truth. We live in a place where money runs rampid, and I believe our understanding is miscalculated.

Like the theory of "Global Warming." Al Gore made a mint on his documentaries and books from something that is supposably killing us/ wiping us out and our planet. He backs companies who are in energy. This was a coo IMO. Politics, science, and power are all unfortunately woven into the same web. A politician needs "research" to show a water supply is "contaminated" to make a new road. Even if the water supply or lake has never shown signs of this contamination. Low and behold a study of this lake shows "contamination" and bam we lose the lake for a highway. This is how science runs, how our WORLD IS. The truth is hidden from us, and they don't want us to know that we are actually ok. The panic creates need, and need creates a need for a leading, and leading allows for us to become boxed in, and becoming boxed in allows for us to be controlled. It all connects. The world itself is fine, its our cities, countries, and our society that is wrong. Yes some things happen, we live in a crazy universe, but we do not make as much of a problem as we are led to believe. Don't let them scare you or BOX YOU IN!

Edited June 30, 2013 by Jessem

[Setton 8,729]

Not at all. I've completely taken into account of our eco-system. What most people on this thread are doing is taking into account only what we know scientifically atm. Which isn't much. Science has to come to many conclusions that benefit or even satisfy those who fund their research. I believe that most of what we get from alot of scientists now a days are either wrong or they are rushed to apease those backing them. Plus, sometimes we may even find that their conclusions are ushered towards more of what the investors want, than what is truth. We live in a place where money runs rampid, and I believe our understanding is miscalculated.

Like the theory of "Global Warming." Al Gore made a mint on his documentaries and books from something that is supposably killing us/ wiping us out and our planet. He backs companies who are in energy. This was a coo IMO. Politics, science, and power are all unfortunately woven into the same web. A politician needs "research" to show a water supply is "contaminated" to make a new road. Even if the water supply or lake has never shown signs of this contamination. Low and behold a study of this lake shows "contamination" and bam we lose the lake for a highway. This is how science runs, how our WORLD IS. The truth is hidden from us, and they don't want us to know that we are actually ok. The panic creates need, and need creates a need for a leading, and leading allows for us to become boxed in, and becoming boxed in allows for us to be controlled. It all connects. The world itself is fine, its our cities, countries, and our society that is wrong. Yes some things happen, we live in a crazy universe, but we do not make as much of a problem as we are led to believe. Don't let them scare you or BOX YOU IN!

We do, but just not as much as we allow ourselves to believe. I think you underestimate our planet

I think you overestimate your grasp of science. Yes, there is always pressure from those funding research to find the 'right' results but articles are always peer reviewed before publication, often by people opposed to the conclusions drawn. It helps keep researchers honest.

The actual data would almost never be rigged as being found out would destroy a researcher's reputation. In the real world, though, data are often rather scattered and require complex analysis and interpretation. The methods chosen at this stage allow data to be presented in such a way is to support most hypotheses.

Which brings me to my main point: science isn't about starting with an idea then proving it right. Good science involves taking observations, developing a hypothesis from those, then gathering more data to disprove alternatives.

Only very poor scientists would start with a hypothesis, find data to support it and conclude that their idea is therefore right and such research would not be accepted by any reputable journal.

[Blink4567 238]

I think you overestimate your grasp of science. Yes, there is always pressure from those funding research to find the 'right' results but articles are always peer reviewed before publication, often by people opposed to the conclusions drawn. It helps keep researchers honest.

The actual data would almost never be rigged as being found out would destroy a researcher's reputation. In the real world, though, data are often rather scattered and require complex analysis and interpretation. The methods chosen at this stage allow data to be presented in such a way is to support most hypotheses.

Which brings me to my main point: science isn't about starting with an idea then proving it right. Good science involves taking observations, developing a hypothesis from those, then gathering more data to disprove alternatives.

Only very poor scientists would start with a hypothesis, find data to support it and conclude that their idea is therefore right and such research would not be accepted by any reputable journal.

Trust me, sometimes I wish I did . Yes, peer reviewing is a great way to keep em honest, but unfortunately that isn't always the case either. THere are of course those projects that do

change the world and actually help. I am not against science in any, but I am against conclusions and "hypothesis" that come to conclude our immediate presence as a threat to the world.

Of course, thats a fifth grade lesson we all have to know XD

Only very poor scientists would start with a hypothesis, find data to support it and conclude that their idea is therefore right and such research would not be accepted by any reputable journal.

This happens way too often also, but really is'nt reputable anymore . There isn't much out there... Observation is the first and foremost BIGGEST tool of science, but we also

have to have more patience

Edited June 30, 2013 by Jessem