GBA Logo horizontal Facebook LinkedIn Email Pinterest Twitter X Instagram YouTube Icon Navigation Search Icon Main Search Icon Video Play Icon Plus Icon Minus Icon Picture icon Hamburger Icon Close Icon Sorted

Community and Q&A

How could the scientists be so wrong?

jackofalltrades777 | Posted in General Questions on

How could the scientists be so wrong? This was a black eye to the credibility of the scientific community.

GBA Prime

Join the leading community of building science experts

Become a GBA Prime member and get instant access to the latest developments in green building, research, and reports from the field.


  1. JC72 | | #1

    Mr. Spock !!!

  2. jackofalltrades777 | | #2

    Leonard Nimoy was a great narrator but the scientists were so wrong that looking back, it is comical and sad.

  3. Expert Member
    RICHARD EVANS | | #3

    Oh Boy... Not this again. This is one of those myths that simply won't die.

    The scientific community did NOT think that the earth was headed for a new ice age during the 70's. In fact, most scientist felt that the earth was warming just as the broader community believes today. Global cooling was pushed more by the media than by scientist.

    Here is a Wikipedia article on the subject:

    The first reference in the wiki article, "The Myth of Global Cooling" was written by the American Meteorological Society and is worth a read- especially if you are skeptical of Wikipedia.

    1. jackofalltrades777 | | #4

      Myth? Did you even bother to watch the video? Many renowned scientists were interviewed.

  4. burninate | | #5

    Science is a very public conversation. It's the only discipline where every single communication is dispatched both formally and informally to peers for critique. There is no centralized hierarchy or official authoritative position. Scientists try to incorporate not just important / treasured positions, but as much new evidence as possible both from them and from others, whether that contradicts the old conventional wisdom or not. Indeed, the easiest / luckiest way to make a name for yourself is to show that something that everybody believes is wrong, and provide the data to prove it to their satisfaction. Yes, that's a thing that actually happens on occasion, because scientists attempt to measure things rather than just issuing arguments.

    You are arguing with the notion of Science as if you were arguing with the notion of a particular religion. This is an attack based on a faulty comparison. There is no sacred doctrine here because there is no authority to establish one (and no authority to lose face if the doctrine proves false); The most treasured, *useful* principle will be eventually abandoned if something better can be found to fit the data, if an idea that provides predictions which match up with reality more often can be synthesized.

    Climate science has grown in rigor and in number of professionals involved by orders of magnitude since the 70's. A greenhouse effect warming was the most common hypothesis in the 60's, and in the 70's, and in the 80's; A series of journalists writing articles for the layman based on a few papers extrapolating cooling in the 70's are what you're observing. By the 90's this was pretty much settled science - with essentially everybody involved who was not directly in the employ of a fossil fuel company, agreeing that the data and the modelling and the historical evidence matched a significant warming hypothesis associated with a rise in CO2.

    For more on this:

  5. walta100 | | #6

    What does this have to do with buildings?

    Nothing at all!

    Let’s not waste our time arguing with each other nothing we say is going to change anyone’s mind.

    Please do not feed the trolls.

    Please do not feed the trolls.

    Please do not feed the trolls.


  6. tommay | | #7

    Remember the old commercial, 4 out of 5 dentist recommend colgate. If these dentist work for colgate you have to wonder why the one dentist doesn't recommend it. Scientist used in studies usually work for the company involved so they may be a bit biased or just outright lying.

  7. exeric | | #8

    I don't think the video has any special connection with "science". It's obviously catering to the lowest common denominator in the public who are just interested in entertainment. I still remember my 6th grade elementary school teaching us in 1963 that the atmosphere is warming due to increasing CO2. He nailed it. It is always surprising how much information is known and just rejected by a segment of the population because it' not aesthetically pleasing to their own sensibilities. Humans tend to not be totally rational.

    Also, the school district I grew up in was in a small town in a rural county in California. I think that says a lot for my home state. There are probably a lot of people on this forum that may have an equally good education but the older I get the more doubts creep in about the "general" population.

Log in or create an account to post an answer.


Recent Questions and Replies

  • |
  • |
  • |
  • |