Do you respect everyone's opinion when it comes to global warming?

Question

Recently another YA user said 'I respect everyone's opinion here', which got me thinking - I don't.

Global warming is a scientific issue, and science is based on facts, not opinions. Now, you can form conclusions based on facts, and call those conclusions 'opinions', but when opinions are based on ignorance, I don't think they deserve respect.

It's like if somebody asks 'what color is Mars?' and a person who's never studied astronomy says 'Mars is purple'. Should I respect their opinion?

The way I see it, they shouldn't be answering if they're ignorant on the subject. Answering with misinformation just makes ignorance spread further. Now suddenly you've got 2 people who think Mars is purple.

So how do you feel about this - do you respect everyone's opinion when it comes to global warming? Do you think people should keep quiet about a scientific subject when they're ignorant of the science? What's your take?

Answer 1

God is in control of our climate

Answer 2

Everyone can have an opinion, but it is each person's job to be skeptical of that opinion to varying levels.  One would hope that the level of skepticism be based on the knowledge of the opinion holder.  Without skepticism, there would be no science or progress.  

However, scientists don't have 'opinions' about scientific matters, they have 'theories', which are based in evidence rather than emotion.

People firing off opinions about topics they know nothing about are really wasting my time.  You cannot argue with someone if you don't take the time to investigate the evidence supporting their side.  I am sick and tired of non-scientists taking a POLITICAL stance on scientific issues.  Those are the kind of people who's OPINIONS I ignore.

Answer 3

No. An opinion of some "alarmists" is that AGW is fact and has been proven--I don't respect that. Likewise, I don't respect the opinion of some "skeptics" who say that AGW is a complete hoax or scam and that CO2 is not a GHG--that is real denial (Dana, it is alright if you call them denialists).

A few more opinions I don't respect:

-All "skeptics" are ignorant of the subject.

-All "skeptics" hate the environment (and/or variations of this)

-All "skeptics" are suffering from the instinctual response of denial (J.S. touches on this quite a bit)

-All "skeptics" are averse to action

-All "AGWers" hate capitalism/democracy/liberty

-All "AGWers" "drank the kool-aid"

-All "AGWers" are ignorant of the subject

-All "AGWers" are alarmists

-All skeptical scientists are industry stooges

-Al Gore made up AGW (or variations of such)

etc....

All these "opinions" are politically motivated and have no place within the realm of science.

Edit:

"I consider myself a skeptic, in the classical sense of reserving judgement on all new information"

I do not wish to be rude, but I believe you know full well the definition of "skeptic" I am using here--the reason for quotation marks. We know the difference between a "skeptic" and a denier in this issue, but others do not, and your answers often convey a message of "anyone who questions the consensus whatsoever is suffering from denial." I do not know how it would be best to communicate the "psychology of denial", but frankly, I would just leave it out.

"I consider climate change to be far more complex than a two-sided issue"

Shouldn't we all?

Thanks, J.S., for the rational response. You seem like an intelligent person with an interesting take on some of these issues.

Answer 4

It's quite evident that there are some zealots in the global warming deal akin to PETA. That doesn't matter it true or false though.

I view global warming (like everything) with skepticism. Unfortunately the last thing I really remember looking at scientifically from the date was the whole hockey stick controversy, which was quite some time ago. I'd like to review the actual literature on the subject, but I don't have time or, really, enough interest.

I've applied a pragmatism to my view though, since it requires only simple logic to conclude that conservation or conservation type policies are not a bad thing (most likely, though not a guarantee).

The good thing about even ignorant comments is it can help you to question your beliefs. Sometimes you take things for granted that aren't really true. Recycling is often touted as a cure-all, but of course some forms of recyclings can arguably be considered to be worse than not recycling. Am I on crack? Research it and your opinion will be all the stronger for it. Look at it as an opportunity to reinforce your own opinions, or change them as necessary.

Finally, scientific research yields scientific data which are up for interpretation in all but the most trivial cases. Thus, opinion MUST play a role. You can break it down all you want, but at some point you'll get to a fact that you can neither prove nor disprove.

Answer 5

I too do not respect your opinion.  You talk a good game, but it is all show.  So science is based on facts.

Fact, global warming hypothesis says that initial co2 warming will be amplified many times over by a positive feedback to get catastrophic warming.

Fact, in order to get a positive feedback, we need a continuous warming of the oceans.  

Fact.  The oceans are not warming.

The oceans, which contain 80 to 90 percent of the planet’s heat, have recently stopped warming!  Over the past 4-5 years, “there has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant,” Josh Willis of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory recently told National Public Radio. Nothing very significant-except the ocean warming trend has stopped?!  

Willis monitors the data from a nifty new set of Argo ocean buoys. They not only record sea surface temperatures but periodically dive 3,000 feet under water and record sub-surface temperatures as they rise back up. These wonderful new Argo floats say the oceans have been cooling slightly for the past 4-5 years, instead of accentuating a continuing global warming trend.

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-...

The La nina event that caused temperatures to drop worldwide, is not temporary.  In April 2008, scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory announced that while the La Niña was weakening, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation—a larger-scale, slower-cycling ocean pattern—had shifted to its cool phase.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroo...

FACT:  When the PDO is in its cool phase temperatures drop historically.

FACT:  The stratosphere is also in a cooling trend.  http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=170

FACT: in order to get catastrophic warming, the models demand that the stratosphere warm at  two to three times the rate as ground temperatures.  Warmer stratosphere holds more water vapour.  Lets ignore the fact the stratosphere is warming at a lesser rate, and accept the warmers argument of faulty satellites.  It is still not warming at the rate the models say it should.

So the trends for a positive feedbacks are not there.  No positive feedbacks, no catastrophic warming.

I have even asked these questions here on yahoo answers, and no one could set me straight.  I was dismayed that non of the top answerers who claim to have a science background and have read the climate science literature could not answer my question, (accept for Bob who did not offer any proof to back up his claim), on this very technical issue.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

Answer 6

As long as it is based on scientific facts and theories.

I DO NOT respect assumptions made, not well back or which can be formally proven wrong in 5 seconds.

Answer 7

No I don't respect everyones opinion on here and I've also come to greatly disrespect some peoples opinions that I used to respect even if I disagreed with them. Some people claim that people are only looking at the temperature in their own back yard. When in actuality they maybe looking at what's happening in the entire hemisphere they live. So if the entire Northern Hemisphere is colder this Winter and now Spring what does that do to the Global Average Temperature - that ultimately is what we are all discussing.

You may not even respect the studing I did to come to my conclusions, but that's okay really, since one of us will be proven wrong.

However, the few things we agree on are respecting our environment, finding alternative energy sources (are reasons for this may be different), conserving rainforests.

But when you say 90% of warming is caused by man. How can you expect me to respect that? I know there's alot of people most likely billions of people who don't drive cars or use electricity. I also know with the use of cadilidic converters in cars and emission controls on smoke stakes we aren't giving off as much emissions if any at all as we did before these things were put in place.

So stop only reading and studing sites that have the same opinion as you and start reading alternative viewpoints, read about the Sun Cycles pay attention to the temperature graphs taken from the oceans. (Why do you think we aren't seeing as many Hurricanes? And the ones that have formed are weaker?) I just feel you're having a bit of tunnel vision when you research the subject of climate change. You should read up on ALL things that play a role in effecting the overall climate of this planet and not just read blogs from people that think the way you do.

Answer 8

I do not respect everyones opinion , not just in science, but in general

I fully agree with "people should keep quiet about a scientific subject when they're ignorant of the science "

I extend it to "people should keep quiet if they're ignorant on the subject in question. "

To give an example , you wouldn't respect the opinion of an Islamic fundamentalist/Terrorist on the topic of women in society would you ?

Same applies here.

I am at university atm, if a Sociology student starts banging on about how all the scientific facts behind Global warming are lies- NONE in the science faculty pays any attention to them.

The problem is that those who are also ignorant are unable to tell when someone else is equally ignorant. So they will listen to and believe the information being given out by the ignorant. And so it goes on.Ad Infinitum.

Answer 9

People have the right to SAY whatever they want in this country, but I certainly don't respect everyone's opinions, especially when those opinions are drawn based upon omission or ignorance of the facts.  And that is almost always the case when global warming is being debated; people seize on an event-such as the cooler than normal temperature outside their windows-and somehow think that disproves global warming.  How can a person respect a downright stupid opinion like that?  Not all the facts are in about global warming and mankind's effect on the future-and that is an extremely important point-but  we have a responsibility to be good stewards of the environment nonetheless.  And that includes ever more vigilance to make sure that we advance technology and science to pollute less while ensuring that the earth can continue to support its ever-growing population.  People who fail to heed or take seriously the threat that 6+ billion human beings are putting on our ecosystem-whether it is seriously examining the potential of mankind's influence on the environment or throwing their Happy Meal bags out the windows of their cars, or anything in between-well, we cannot afford to respect their 'opinions.'  They need to get educated about global warming and then offer their 'opinions' based on some semblance of reason and common sense.  I'm certainly not seeing that, especially here at YA.  It's practically embarrassing to see some of the tripe posing as...I don't know WHAT it is posing as or what the people who post it think they are doing...but in no way do I respect it.

Answer 10

it depends on how he delivered his opinion. if his opinion is to attack someone, i would certainly disrespect him. but if the opinion is clean or whatsoever, i would certainly respect it.

it is just an opinion so i would respect opinions always.

Answer 11

For the most part, yes, just because you think someone's opinion is incorrect does not mean it is.  If fact you are often incorrect, and your question cites an example, "Is Mars Purple".  Well to you it is not, but there are other organisms who's visual spectrum is skewed to the higher bands of visual and near ultra violet, and in fact the organisms may see the light from mars as purple.

You really need to take a step back from the real climate kool aid.  There is so much actual science going on around you, yet you choose to filter it in so narrowly so that you can't actually realize Mars may be purple, and astronomy has nothing to do with color.

The idea of silencing someone because of ignorance is abominable.  Please, if you are really thinking along those lines, you may wish to get educated in another field of science, psychiatry.  There are a number of experts available to you to explain megalomania.

Answer 12

The way I look at it is this, you have a choice, of who's opinion you respect.

The misinformed also have a right to view an opinion on their ignorance( freedom of speech)!

So saying that, what do you do!

Yes I do agree with You !

People that really don't know --should not give their opinion!

Perhaps they should answer topics on what they do know!

Answer 13

nope

Answer 14

When I saw your headline, I immediately had a strong opinion.  When I read your details, they expressed exactly my beliefs.  I do not respect creationism as science, and I do not respect the beliefs by people who refuse to think, research or even accept the beliefs for experts worldwide.  There is opportunity to learn if people have real information to share, but the answers from flat-earthers on YA do not need to be respected.

Answer 15

Do you respect everyone's opinion when it comes to global warming?

I certainly don't.   I think as long as someone is screaming about my use of a car, or a light or a clothes dryer or my eating meat, and they want to blame me for the shape of the world, they can kiss my methane producing butt.

Unless you live in a home that uses zero (0) power from a power source that came from fossil fuels, unless you walk or run where ever you travel. Anything else, bike, skates, scooter whatever, not only required power to make, but fuel to transport, fuel to make the tires, rubber etc.  So any use of that is a no, no.

Unless you grow ever bite of food you consume in your own garden or no further than next door, and you use 0 fuel or energy to do so.

If you work in any kind of office that uses any form of power off the grid,  If you read or print anything on paper,

If you do any of the above, you are a hypocrite.  And have no business telling anyone else how to live.

Because you use LESS, does not mean you are not guilty.  The US is always blamed as using the most energy.  Most don't know that we produce more food, more durable goods, more useful items that any other country.  Yes we use more, but we produce more.

How much co2 is produced by most rain forest nations?  little.

What else good comes from these places?  Little

Get the point?

Answer 16

This sounds like something I might say, but answering late in the game to this question, and reading the various opinions expressed, got me thinking about respect and opinions.  

Opinion: belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge

Respect: The state of being regarded with honor or esteem; Willingness to show consideration or appreciation.

And then I found the link below.  Which gave me more food for thought. It's long, but there's some pertinent lines strewn throughout.  For anyone who doesn't want to wade through it all, read the introduction and skip to the summary.

I may think a lot of things about a response that offers poor or outright false information, but I show my respect by withholding a thumbs down (unless they're particularly rude), and by not striking back in kind, even though it may make us feel better in the short run.

Good question, Dana, because it touches on a larger issue, how we treat each other in this forum.  We didn't lay the ground rules, but by choosing to participate, we must live with them and develop some sense of decorum.  When we don't offer that, it says something about us, I believe.

Answer 17

Not really-there are quite a few ill-informed responses.

I just saw one where some guy said that Mars was warming so there  'obviously' was no warming. And that was a recent post. I thought that argument had been disproven for a while.

Answer 18

I epecially don't respect the opinion of those who rely on "appeal to authority" type arguments, ad hominem attacks, or all the other b.s. of you AGW nuts.  

      The Global temperature change in the last century, is a tiny bump, on top of big gyrations in temperature, at 10000yr intervals called ice ages.

     I've read a lot about this topic, but no , I'm not going to get adegree in climatology before I disagree about an obvious scam.  There is no consensus - that's the big lie, repeated endlessly.

Answer 19

I'll meet you half way on this.  The issue of global warming is indeed a scientific one, not political.  The problem, the facts of pollution have turned from a sense of urgency that something should be done, to knee-jerk reactions and emotionalisms on both sides of the global warming debate.  

In science, there is no such thing as "case closed" or Al Gore's, "The debate is over."  In science, the debate is never over.  

*Listening* to the facts tells me that the Earth goes through cycles of warm and cold all the time, it's not logical to think it's always going to be 72 degrees and sunny all summer.  50 degrees for a few days after a cold front goes through does not mean global cooling and a heat wave in the 90's does not mean runaway heat buildup because of too much  water vapor.

Lastly, you can respect someone's opinion, but you can still disagree with it.  It doesn't make you ignorant or hateful, it just means you thought the issue through, looked at the information and formed your own opinion.  Your opinion may be wrong, but you still have a right to it.

Answer 20

Of course, other then those that are deliberately abusive. Some individuals are lacking in their ability to discern between comparisons and fact. I'm a bull in the china shop, somewhere somehow I know I'm going to offend someone. To me GW is a environmental issue and is listed as such. It covers such a board spectrum its difficult not to include every subset. This could be one reason many people express derision at the concept.

Answer 21

Respect the right to "issue" an opinion, regardless of how inappropriate or inane.

Lately in this category, the most overstated, overworked and misapplied word, is "scientific". Even the scientists themselves will tell us, they do not have a concensus.......so why do WE argue and debate it.

The GW issue has taken on a life of its own, exclusive of any scientific group or organization. For every reference you give me, I can offer one in rebuttal..............and it stops there. Both feel good that they dominated, but dozens of other people are confused as h**l, because so many sound so "literate and expert".

Personally I care less about GW, Al Gore or any scientific revelation until 99% of scientists concur.

So, I'm a cynic now.

Answer 22

no i dont...because of their ignorance in that matter...

Answer 23

Respecting others' opinions applies to opinions, not actions such as misinforming others.

I'd definitely not respect someone who is paid to spread misinformation, where harm to others is the result.  

I guess I'd have to draw the line somewhere around the point where.people are intentionally spreading misinformation that they know or strongly suspect is not an honest and truthful representation.  In the case of global warming its particularly distasteful since evidence indicates that there is tangible harm being done to billions of people on the planet as a result.  It should carry legal and criminal penalties for the people who intentionally harm others.

To be ignorant, especially about a subject as complicated as climate change, is understandable, as is being mistaken.

Willful avoidance of facts is a gray area in that it may be caused by normal mental processes such as denial and congnitive dissonance.  Whether or not the person is affecting others adversely would probably affect my determination.

Generally I try to be patient with people in case they're honestly misinformed, and one more piece of the puzzle presented in a non-confrontational may might help them see the bigger picture.

Edit -

bob326 -

I consider myself a skeptic, in the classical sense of reserving judgement on all new information, and I consider climate change to be far more complex than a two-sided issue (while I do conclude that there are at least 2 major mechanisms for anthopogenic warming and at least 3 main factors that need to be addressed, I do not support any of the various current CO2 tax proposals).  As a skeptic I seek, and regularly ask for here on YA, credible evidence that challenges or modifies my own current conclusions.  That's what a true skeptic does (look up the definition... the skepticism applies universally to all information).  

Here many people who call themselves "skeptics" are aligned with a fixed belief.  They automatically reject anything that opposes their fixed position and they automatically accept anything that supports it (no matter how tenuous the credibility of the source).  Their participation on YA seems to be all about loudly (and often aggressively) proclaiming their denial (as if repeating it like a mantra justified it).  Pick a random question or two and see how many times the work "alarmist" is used.  That does tend to polarize the conversation on YA to some degree.  Perhaps giving them a little perspective on their own behavior is worth a shot?

I have a hard time identifying with or understanding fixed beliefs, so I have looked into the psychology of denial and it's interesting and seems relevant.  I have an SUV and use the 4WD, high clearance and/or sleep in the back about 90 days of the year, so I think I need it, but as a skeptic I frequently revisit that belief and consider whether I'm in denial on that and might be able to get by with another vehicle.  

I apologize if sometimes fail to appropriately qualify my opinion that some of the so-called "skeptics" here seem to be in a closed-minded state of denial.  Some, as you point out, might appropropriately be called "deniers", certainly not all.  Of course the people who reject outright the possibility of being blinded by denial are not engaging in skeptical thought about their own beliefs, so if they're not skeptical, and the automatically deny the possibility of denial (along with virtually everthing else inconvenient that comes their way)...  You tell me.  What should we call what they're doing (if not denial) and what should we refer to them as (if not skeptics) to minimize misunderstandings?

Frankly, it's frustrating to me as a skeptic that some people who act like knee-jerk deniers have hijacked the term "skeptic".  Since skepticism is a flexible and open to revision middle ground, having extremists hijack the term leaves actual skeptics out in the cold, either having to get painted with the cartoonish and inflammatory "alarmist" brush, or confused with the fixed denial "skeptics".  Again, I'm open to suggestions if you can think of ways to clarify terminology or facilitate communication.

Answer 24

There's a difference between 'respecting everyone's right to have a different opinion' and 'respecting everyone's opinion'.

So I respect the right of the person who believes in the 'Mars is purple' argument  to be able to express that opinion.

Otherwise we would be on a very slippery slope of having to decide who has the right to speak (however much we disagree with them)  and who doesn't.

The way to counter opinions we don't respect is with a sound argument with internal and external validity.

That is, it's got to be logically argued and, if possible,  based on well authenticated empirical evidence

Answer 25

I agree with you, "opinions" which are clearly not based on knowledge of any facts do not deserve any respect.

If I want to call Mars red and you want to call it brown, I will respect your opinion.  If you want to call it purple, I won't.

There are people who claim there is no such thing as global warming, or that we have to figure what the Earth's "ideal' temperature is.  I don't respect those opinions and I honestly believe those people should be flat out ignored when it comes to discussions on climate change.

There are people who understand climate change is a constant natural process, but don't believe there is enough evidence to assume man is accelerating the current climate change.  I disagree but I do have some degree of respect for this opinion.

Answer 26

For me it depends if the opinion comes from a knlodgeable person I respect it but if it is pure gibberish I'm not

Answer 27

Just my opinion, you should respect people, however I don't believe you should respect anyone opinion on any matter unless you personally know the person and have learned to trust them and their opinion.  

  Many people come on this site and this category to learn and express their views.  I would think this would be welcomed by all because if your going to persuade people you need to learn about them, and find out their fears. And you may learn that your not always correct in your evaluation of the data.  

  I have learned a lot from many people here and will continue to do so. I also have come to respect some of the opinions on this site and enjoy reading profiles because we are a diverse people.  

Remember your here to convince those against you not those for you, if everyone agreed I doubt this category would be very interesting.

Answer 28

Actually - I get aggravated with people spewing out ignorant nonsense that becomes and infectious disease among the populous of undereducated simpletons.

But i still respect that they have their right to voice an opinion

Answer 29

when it comes to religion i respect everyones opinion cause non of its true. Just give them the beneifit of the doubt,

but global warming is a fact. You cant respect peoples "Opinions" when they arnt even educated on the subject. Your in the right. Good luck

Answer 30

Global warming is not a matter of opinion, it's a fact, easily proven by the most basic scientific knowledge.  It's happened many times in the earth's history.  It's a perfectly natural process of the planet.  But that's hardly the point.

So you see someone with their pant leg on fire, so you tell them, "Hey dude, in my opinion, I strongly believe your pant leg is on fire.  Have a nice day."

Opinions notwithstanding, we know what's going to happen to the poor slob whose pant leg is on fire.

Respecting opinions ain't got nothin' to do with it.