Does it seem to you that global warming deniers think scientists are stupid?

Question

I was just looking back through some of the questions I'd previously answered, and it seemed like every denier questioner picked a denier answer who said something like "we don't know what caused past climate changes/scientists can't predict the future/Al Gore is a big poopy head/etc."

This seems bizarre to me, because climate scientists tell us they have a good idea what caused past climate changes, that they can project what will happen in the future under certain scenarios, that they don't care about Al Gore, etc.

When they're not busy blabbering about how the Sun makes us warm, it seems like most denier answers are basically "we don't know anything".

Do you think the deniers think scientists are stupid? Or just that climate scientists are stupid, perhaps? I mean if the climate scientists are saying they understand something and the deniers are saying they don't...to me that suggests they're stupid or delusional. Or perhaps when the deniers say "we don't understand" they mean "I don't understand"?

What's your take on this?

Answer 1

I don't think they're stupid, I think they're lying.

Answer 2

yes ,very much in the same way Alchemist`s were regarded with suspicion and fear in the middle ages.

Most i suspect will not even read or take in given texts or other information

as if a shutter goes down ,but nevertheless an opinion comes forth based on ,what ?

darkness ?

that is the big mystery.

I posted a video of what I thought was a reasonable ,middle of the road ,scientific ,approach to climatic changes and some effects.

The people that answered ,said they did not want to see the video  because it was all lies and excrement.

And then question was deleted ,twice.

So much for Yahoo`s unbiased policy.

Answer 3

Scientists may not be stupid, but seriously mislead.  The alarmists who follow them are the stupid ones.  

Like any walk of life, science has differing opinions and people behind them.  Do you think that scientists, in some cases, can't be bought?  Of course they can...look at the IPCC for example.  Hired, hand-picked by the UN and told what results are expected of their work.  They're not stupid maybe, but are misleading themselves or being mislead for financial gain.

Answer 4

I don't believe they think the scientists are stupid, they think the scientists are corrupt and are following a secret agenda, to enable the government to impose "green" taxes or to massage Al Gore's ego, something like that!

They think that people like me are stupid for falling for it!

Answer 5

The deniers choose to be in calculated denial to protect their financial interests.  Many of call themselves Christians, yet they are totally caught up in Greed Here and Now, and ignore future environmental and religous consequences.  

Example:  George Bush is killing our planet and our troops, while protecting his oil interests and labeling himself Christian in the process.

Close minded people are the problem here.  They need to wake up and put there monies where their mouths are.

Global Warming cannot be validly denied.

Answer 6

I don't call those who abandon the scientific method "scientists"...I respect scientists.

Answer 7

No, I don't think scientists are stupid, I just think if you truly believe they have all the answers about what happened during past climate changes when they couldn't observe it for themselves you're being a bit naive. Since I highly doubt they'd tell you we know exactly what caused the climate to change in the past. A scientist always qualifies their findings when they haven't observed things for themselves.

Answer 8

I don't trust scientists who believe in religion.

Answer 9

My take, Dana, with all honesty, is that you are not critical enough of the other scientists in your field and their theory.  You must know that there is nothing wrong with denying a theory that observations don't support (AGW).  

You are too trusting of the theory and I sometimes wonder why you don't see that temperature today is nothing out of the ordinary, and that radical wild variation in climate is perfectly natural.

I don't think scientists are stupid, in fact, quite the opposite.  I think very smart people are capable of coming up with good reasons to support BAD theories, ESPECIALLY if certain outcomes mean that the funding of their research and jobs will continue.  

The data really, really, really does NOT support a crisis at all.  In a previous post you made clear that you EXPECT ever increasing disaster (food & water shortages, etc.)  

I really think you should keep an open mind to what John Cristy and others are saying.

All the best to you.

Answer 10

we have heard same kind of nonsense before,there are always people that want to make profit by promoting fear. all i ask for is evidence,so fare nothing that would hold up in court has been presented

Answer 11

If there is no money making agenda involve maybe I will believe global warming but for now it's a big bussiness scam used by Algore.

Do you have any idea how much profit Algore got from that movie the inconvenient truth.  

Answer 12

Many of their arguments are strikingly similar to those the Intelligent Design idiots came up with.

Answer 13

The only "scientists" that agree with global warming are the ones that get paid to agree with grants, ect. The true scientists say it is a farce.

Answer 14

I love the answers that say that climatologists are all about the money.  Yeah, when people are saying they want to get rich and powerful, they don't chose to be lawyers, MBAs, finance bankers, brain surgeons...no they chose climatology.  Okay.

Answer 15

it would seem the answers speak for themselves.

"fledgling science"

"naive"

etc.

isn't it interesting how smart many of 'em are.

kind'a makes you wonder how they get their sock off the outside of their shoe.

to which, of course, one has to add that they just don't want it to be true.

does that remind one of the evolution vs creationism debate?

Answer 16

I think some people don't want to admit that the world is changing and that we have to help, it's hard for people to step up to the plate and do some work for the environment. I don't think it's smart to say that all these scientists are just wrong or are making this all up, it doesn't seem possible.

Answer 17

i do belive in global warming but to some people like me the line is the danm eco/earth friendly  is bull S**t i belive it is happining but u can think of this if u wanna stop waste like a can of frebreze and u by an eco friendly one its the same both r recycleable and the both also get dumped in trash sites the thing is there is all these products like viniger to clean carpets,leamon juice and water to make blond hair more of a stand out coulor instead of buyiing eco S**t

Answer 18

Agreed.

Most all of their arguments are silly, UNLESS most all scientists are:

stupid, ignorant of basic facts, lying, or engaged in a giant conspiracy.

It's EXACTLY like people who claim we never went to the Moon, or that the Earth is 6000 years old.

"make an attempt to use your own God-given common-sense"

Well I do, and I agree with the scientists.  But if I didn't agree with the National Academy of Sciences, I'd have to really rethink my position.  I certainly wouldn't be simply spouting my "common sense" here with no references, in opposition to the NAS.  That would show I had no sense of reality.

It would be like an amateur softball player thinking they could hit better than Barry Bonds.  The top professionals bat in a different league.

Answer 19

The only feasible explanation for those doubters (not all of them, fit this bill) who hold such a low view of scientists (inferring either incompetence or intentional deception for monetary gain) are:

1) They are completely ignorant of science and the process of modern science (including the checks and balances provided in the world of peer reviewed scientific journals and conferences.

2) They themselves are unethical people who'd lie, cheat, or steel for personal gain, thus they conclude everyone else must be like that.

3) The Dunning-Kruger effect.

It's one thing to criticize popular media articles, op-ed pieces, personal blogs, or answers on Yahoo.  It's quite another thing for laymen to dismiss, without any evidence, countless peer reviewed articles in respected journals that are well received by other experts in the field.

Answer 20

Dana it is just that we want what you are unable to provide. And that is properly documented material that can be validated through proper scientific method. Every piece I have ever seen from any of you promoters is a published conclusion without the data stream that led to the conclusion. There is also no corroborating material from other researchers showing these theories to be testable and provable independently. Until such is shown no one who understands the basic rules of scientific testing will accept them as valid.

Answer 21

Honestly I just think that people are too selfish to care about anyone other than themselves. Poor Earth- it will just have to fend for itself- you know, natural selection...

Now, I just don't waste my time or my breathe when people deny global warming's existence. I just think to myself and smile because I know I'll be around in the future and they won't. =)

Answer 22

We can blame post modernism. It has taken its toll on the human knowledge quest by implanting the idea into the general public that there is no such thing as truth and that differing opinions are always equally valid approximations of an unknowable reality. It has helped to dismantle the authority of science, and has given shelter to fringe ideas lacking data.

Answer 23

I know you are going to give this a thumbs down before I start, but what the h**l. Let's see just how closed minded you really are. I don't think climate change scientists are stupid. I think they are very clever. After all, it takes exceptional talent to make money from thin air. It is the same on both sides of the argument. When credible, scientifically researched evidence is presented that may point to flaws in the global warming model, people like yourself, dismiss it out of hand and point out that anyone with an opposite claim must be stupid, or working for oil companies. People like Dr. DeFreitas, Auckland University, the late Augie Auer, Professor of Climatology from the University of Wisconsin for 20 odd years, are dismissed for not toeing the party line, but still present credible evidence of no global warming due to man's activities. Anyone who puts their faith in the IPCC should look very closely at the UN. This is probably the most corrupt and ineffective organization ever conceived by man and well open to hijack by people with other agendas, particularly money making. Again, any flaws in the IPCC model are dismissed as purely propaganda by the pro global warming lobby.  As for the much vaunted peer review, how can any peer review be considered as unbiased when all the parties concerned are working for the same organization and pretty much rely on the global warming band wagon to continue to get their pay. It is like asking a prostitute to write a review of the brothel she works in knowing full well it is going to be reviewed by the brothel owner – the person who pays her. I have a close friend who works for a government run company promoting businesses to look at their carbon footprint and become carbon neutral.  Like he says, “Its a complete load of bollocks, but h**l, it pays well, so why not.” There needs to be balance in the research, presented evidence and conclusions, rather than each side calling the other stupid for not agreeing. I may have set out with an open mind, but quite frankly, smug, self righteous zealots like Ken and yourself have pushed me to the dark side.

So give me a thumbs down for not agreeing, or for taking an opposite view point, but that's what the global warming brigade do – label any one who disagrees or who wants a truly open debate, as stupid.  

Answer 24

I think that if your computer model is incapable of reproducing at least one climate oscillation from glaciation to glaciation, then your model is not sufficiently reliable to set public policy. Not one model investigated is capable of reproducing the historically repeatable process where temperatures fall abruptly at their peak values. Further, none of the models reproduce the historical behavior of temperature changes always leading changes in atmosphreic carbon dioxide concentrations. This includes those times when temperatures and carbon dioxide levels are at their peak and, while CO2 levels remain high, temperatures plummet (see 130,000 years ago in the reference).

Since no current model can accurately reproduce these behaviors, they would all predict runaway temperatures at those historic peaks when the actual behavior would have been abrupt cooling. In other words, they would have always been wrong.

Answer 25

I'm a so-called "denier", and I don't think scientists are stupid, just bought off by Al Gore & Co.

Answer 26

You are right, global warming deniers ALWAYS think scientists are stupid. Whenever you say "it's scientifically proven to be true", they don't even seem to understand what does it mean.

Whenever you see a deniers question, you WILL always see the words hoax, scam, Al Gore etc..

They don't even understand what does these sentences mean:

"EVERY major scientific organizations has an official statement that this is real, and caused by us."

"It is not based on faith to Al Gore, it's about science."

It's true, whatever you tell them, they WON'T understand it.

And they are the one who is stupid, not us scientists/global warming believers, because they can't REALLY feel the extreme heat,the rising of temperatures, and man made climate change!

Answer 27

Yes, some think we're stupid.  Some think we're just out to make money.  Some think we're socialists.  Maybe some even think we're socialists out to make money.  

I think most of them don't really understand science--but think they do.