Is the main reason for skepticism that most people are not used to making decisions based on scientific data?

Question

This is clearly _A_ reason why many people have a hard time understanding this. Is it the biggest one?

People experience the local weather, not the global climate. You can't see or feel global warming. To understand it, you have to look at the global climate data. Easy for a scientist, who finds the data very compelling, harder for a layman. People's senses give them information about local weather, not global climate.

Relying on data, rather than their own senses, is hard for a layman, particularly if you don't trust scientists. But in this case the reach of our senses, in space and time, is inadequate to grasp global warming. And so we get tied in knots talking about the weather here, when it's just a side issue.

In order to know the truth about global warming, you MUST look at the data. Check out this graph. The black jaggies are dominated by weather changes. The red (5 year average) line is what the climate is doing.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

Answer 1

Mark Anthony and Jmaximus had great answers, but I doubt you will choose them.

As an engineer i am taught to take emotion out of my deciscion and use science or code. I to use data,

already mentioned by Jmax, the we should be about 45% of the way to doubling. The natural pre 1940 is .25 degree C and the effect do to 385 ppm should be .4 deg C. We have seen a change of .6 +/- .2 deg C. from the IPCC.

BOB,

Does this data show a positive feedback? Neutral Feedback, or Negative feedback?

Answer 2

For me it's because I feel that data can be skewed for political purpouses quite easily. And the AGW is the greatest example of this. The temp graph you've supplied, like almost all the graphs used by the agw crowd starts at 1880. We were coming out of the little ice age, of course the temperature is going to spike if you start the graph there. Mann's hockey stick. I"ve read the explanation as to why he eliminated the medievil warming period, but I can't buy it. Why did he eliminate the midevel warming period? The hockey stick graph is a joke.



It seems to me that many people confuse these two subjects: 1. Does co2 cause global warming? 2. Is it ok to pollute? I'm skeptical that the tiny amount of co2 we're producing is causing the globe to warm, and I'm confident that it's not ok to pollute. But they're totally different subjects.



We've got people selling carbon credits, governments instituting taxes based on agw, while not using the money for anything to do with containing co2. So the motivation is there and the situation is ripe for abuse



Sprinkled thoughout the wave of scientists claiming agw is a reality is a group of smart well educated people who say 'This doesn't make sense' Invariably, they're trashed on a personal level, more like litigants in a trial than scientists with opposing views.



I'm not the shapest knife in the drawer, it's been pointed out before, but: I can generally follow along on scientific subjects when they're explained to me. Not this time, it's too much of a stretch. AGW people refuse to concede that the warming of other planets in our solar system is of interest. It's all such a crock! It's like a religion. First you believe in it, then you make all the circumstances fit.

Answer 3

The main reason I am a skeptic is that I've read extensively on the subject and am from a scientific background, and so I refuse to be conned by people who want to push this AGW agenda onto the ignorant masses.



You say you are a "climate scientist" which tells me you have a reason to keep this hoax alive in order that you can continue to make money in your chosen profession. That's ok because most motives involve money. Just don't say this is a scientific issue when it isn't.



AGW is a political tool as well. It has no basis in fact. At best it's an unproven theory being used by politicians to further their own agenda.



No one has ever proven that humans cause climate change, so until they do, it would be nice if you would quit pushing this religion of yours onto others. You can't convince people who know the science and are free-thinking individuals.



It's obvious you are close-minded, so you are not behaving like a real scientist. From reading your remarks, I am not sure you really are a scientist, but that doesn't matter either.



Skeptics are what makes the world work. Being in lock-step with all these "AGW believers" shows a profound disregard for science and common sense, as well as an inability to think for yourself.



I am sick of elitist know-it-alls who don't even seem to have a 3rd grade education in natural science, trying to badger us into believing what they believe.



I've heard people use the term "Global Warming Evangelist" and I think that fits very well with those who have such a firm belief in this that they won't listen to opposition and feel it is their duty to push their religion on others.



Bottom line, you'll be able to convince the very ignorant, but don't try it on people who have a real education in science.



Skeptics are too smart for that.

Answer 4

Is your question about human beings ability to understand scientific data or are you just giving your global warming report?

Intelligent people can understand and also analyze scientific date, they can also reach conclusions based on the data and other research.



Uneducated people tend to rely solely on their senses and past experiences, not because they do not want to know, but because the data is written at a higher level Than they can comprehend.

That is a statement about their education, not their desire to know or their desire to learn.

Answer 5

To those of you who dont believe that global warming is real or that we are the cause of it: What i dont understand is, why you are so against taking advantage of this issue and using it as a catalyst to implement necessary and critical changes in the way to treat our environment? Logically we cannot continue to pollute our planet in the manner that we have. Logically, we will all benefit if we implement cleaner and more efficient ways of living. Clearly, we cannot continue on with the same old structured society, our ways of living are becoming increasingly outdated and dangerous. Clearly, we are all intelligent and innovative creatures, we have the ability to grow, progress and adapt. Why not continue to evolve, instead of being stuck in our old ways??

Answer 6

I was told the earth was flat and the center of the universe. I was told man would never split the atom. I was told that we could never travel faster than sound. I was told that if man ever traveled faster than 25 MPH his blood would boil. I was told that we were entering an ice age. I was told all these things by men of science. They all had the facts. and were sure of what they said. Hummmmm, Damn. I wonder if I should learn how to be skeptical?

Answer 7

Which data? You mean the cooling over the last 18 months? Or the cooling from the 1940s to the late 1970s? Or the cooling from the early 1300s that lasted into the 19th century? Or the cooling period from about AD 600 to about AD 900? Or the warm periods in between?



The thing is, Bob, it's a question of what data you look at - and what you do to it. There's nothing magical, for example, about "five year average" other than that that's the measure that gives you an upward trend. I guaranty you that if in three years the "five year average" doesn't give you an upward trend but the "ten year average" does, Hansen will go with the "ten year average."



And I'm positively sick of the "just deferring to the experts" line - - - economics is a science too and the consensi among economists on price controls and tariffs are both far greater than the consensus among climate scientists on catastrophic man-made global warming - - - yet I'm sure many of the people who claim to be "just deferring to the experts" on climate change oppose free trade and are in favor of price caps on gasoline and in favor of minimum wage.

Answer 8

In the 1700s the Earth warmed by 0.5 degrees. In the 1800s the Earth warmed by 0.5 degrees. In the 1900s the Earth warmed by 0.5 degrees. We have been generally warming since the Little Ice Age. Is the main reason for blaming humans for any change in climate that some people are not used to making decisions based on scientific data and tend to make those decisions based on emotion?

Answer 9

There is no scientific proof that shows Global Warming is an issue. In all actually, if you were to look into sociology, you would see that Global Warming is in truth, a State Sponsored Religious Idea that is a major attempt to unite the world under one set of ideals.

Answer 10

it is humorous that a 'health practitioner' might evaluate NASA and the IPCC to be 'liberal aspects'. humorous as in you're a humorous tale. i used to be in denial merely such as you. it's time to confess that we've been incorrect and settle for AGW.

Answer 11

Most of my years in management was analyzing data, that is what makes me skeptical on global warming.

Answer 12

good question. YOu could have asked it in a more fair and less leading way, but it's a decent question.



I cannot speak for all "Skeptics". but that is absolutely NOT the reason I do not believe. in fact, i deal with data and scientific fact every day. All of my work decisions are based on just that. also, in my personal life, I like to gather data to make decisions before I just fly off and make a decision on something because "it sounds good". i am a very emotionless decision maker on most things. I am a lifelong student, crave knowledge and constantly seek it, and with good data, i can be persuaded to see the "Other side". which is exactly why I am a Global Warming "Skeptic".



I have seen the data on both sides. I have heard the arguments on both sides. I have sought answers on both sides. and the convincing data (From meteorologists that I know, to atmosperic scientists that I know, to geologists that I know) lies on the side of non-AGW.



Some of my skepticism is born out of my knowledge of the impossibility to predict future events. but most of it comes from common sense, and the ability to sift through the data. if you really are a scientist, Bob, then you know darn well that you can make the statistics show anything you like. its a VERY easy trick to manipulate data, one that the AGW crowd often likes to associate with the anti-AGW crowd. One thing we do agree on- look at the data. but look at all of it, not just the cherry picked data.



for example, in the famous IPCC report, the very agency used to prop up AGW, the IPCC states that the global average surface temp increased by 0.6 deg. C (1.1 deg. F) in the 20th century. that stat alone oculd sound alarming. what is also in there, but seldom mentioned, is that over HALF of that warming (roughly 0.35 Deg. C, or 0.63 deg. F) occurred in the 1st 45 years of the century...PRIOR to the mass use of fossil fuels...



As one who runs computer models, i agree with the scientist who tell the media that "model results SHOULD be viewed with great skepticism"...and yet, they are not, but rather taken as gospel.



finally, when i hear a Harvard Astrophysist say that "$25 BILLION in government funding has been spent since 1990 to research global warming. If scientists and researchers were coming out releasing reports that GW had little to do with man, and mostly do with just how the planet works, ther wouldn't be as much money to study it.", that also makes me a little leary of the people doing the research.



I know this answer is long, but it documents exactly why it has NOTHING to with not being used to using scientific reasearch to formulate my opinions, but rather how i DO use such information to formulate my opinions. i know some people argue this topic form an emotional standpoint, but I am not one of them. "The data" gives me no reason to believe that AGW is any more real than Santa Claus...

Answer 13

The GISS is a farce, where is the peer reviewed study that supports the notion of adding the low and high temperature at each station, dividing by two and applying a black magic homogeneity correction? Bet you cant find one.



If you subtract El-Nino, La-Nina and volcanics; solar magnetic variability explains everything, it's scientific data, and I don't have to depend surface thermometers sitting above AC condenser units and Airport parking lots throughout the world.



http://www.sott.net/image/image/9354/svensmark-plotofGCRandtempanomaly.jpg

Answer 14

actually, I find the main reason for skepticism is the lack of scientists making decisions based on facts, facts that have real results on people lives, and livelihood.

Answer 15

Not in my experience.



I don't regard environmental alarmism as a science. It uses scientific arguments to push ideas, but objective science seems to be the enemy of environmental alarmism.



I find in my experience, the more intelligent people are, they more skeptical they are about environmental alarmism.

Answer 16

You are being kind to the deniers giving them the benefit of the doubt. But after having seen and experienced their rudeness and lack of logic, despite all efforts to come to a sensible consensus based on scientifically collected and analyzed data, I have reluctantly concluded that few deniers of the harmful impacts of human activities on the atmosphere and other natural planetary systems are only ignorant! While some deniers are "stuck on stupid," too many of them are posting out of spite & malice or for money or for other selfish reasons/motives because "the status quo" favors their jobs, their investments, or all of the foregoing. Bob, there are immoral people who thrive on the misery and suffering of others. You should know that by now. I do at 56+ and have seen it in many selfish people. I do wish it were otherwise.





I never knew a scientist wearing a black bikini with her legs wide open did real science? And what mansion did you study at, pussycat? lol Your Name? Are you into that S & M stuff?



"Castles says his economic analysis casts severe doubt on the scientific predictions." Huh? Is this the way to do basic science? What school of science is that? Louder, I can't hear you.



shucks, do I have to flash my badges to make "an argument from authority."Aren't the topics and principles I acquired in Cambridge enough?



"Does this data show a positive feedback? Neutral Feedback, or Negative feedback" Typical ME thinks atmosphere works like aN instrument-controller! What next? Are you going to to insist on a Laplace transform Sol'n for the locus of control? LOL



"$25 BILLION in government " Hmmm, is that equivalent to 2 & 1/2 Months of what the US Military spends while in Iraq & Afghanistan? I am not defending the possible waste. I am only adding something to compare it against. OK?



Now then, by your logic, my dear rangers, all scientists must be perfect, pure, error-free, make-no- mistakes human paragons. I believe that is the description reserved for God. I know ,having studied real science and the philosophy of science that your "thoughts" & expectations on this matter is not the way science actually discovers and advances scientific knowledge incl better theories. Because I am a miserable Socratic kind of human being only with my share of full-blown imperfections,(very unlike your kind),I kow I will make a few mistakes explaining it all to you. Therefore ,I believe I will pass the challenge onto your perfect cocksure brethren -the most perfect deniers of AGW-who would as naturalists would take any theory of human origin and pull it apart. BTW Some might even be able to sustainably do cold fusion some day and explain the types of feedback mechanisms that are required. Be sure to ask them what is the role of mistakes ,unexplained Eureka moments, and dreams in science. Good luck to you ranger47! LOL3Xe-squared



To: "I wonder if I should learn how to be skeptical?"



Yes! with the emphasis on the "HOW TO". A college degree is very expensive, but paraphrasing a well-known meme "Any mind lost to ignorance and Bacon's idols is such a terrible waste!"

Answer 17

There are thousands of skeptical scientists Bob. Some are members of those "major scientific organizations" that you are always referring to.

Answer 18

That's certainly a big part of it. Global warming and climate change are complex issues which require a serious amount of research to understand.



Generally on issues like this, people defer to the scientific experts. For the most part that's true of global warming as well, since roughly 80% of the global population accepts the scientific consensus. However, because accepting global warming requires making serious changes in how we live, there is some major resistance.



So essentially the options are to defer to the experts, research the subject oneself, or resist both. The 'skeptics' are generally not accustomed to making decisions based on scientific data, but just a big a reason for their 'skepticism' is a refusal to accept the conclusions of the experts. Instead they come up with paranoid conspiracy theories and political reasons to dismiss the experts and their data.

Answer 19

The main reason for skepticism is that people can actually think logically, no offense.



*Down with Big Brother*