How can a person dispute the prevailing scientific opinion if he doesn't understand the scientific basics?

Question

Global warming 'skeptics' constantly make claims which go against basic scientific and mathematical principles. Here are a few examples and the field whose principles they violate:

The planet has stopped warming (statistics)

The greenhouse effect doesn't exist (physics, chemistry)

All other planets are warming (observational astrophysics)

The Sun is causing the current global warming (solar physics)

We can't predict the future (theoretical physics)

Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans (geology, geophysics)

Of course there's nothing wrong with understanding something. What I don't get is how people can have a complete lack of understanding of the scientific basics and yet claim that the scientific experts are wrong. How is such a position justifiable?

Answer 1

The posts that elude to the fact that people believe what they want to believe until the evidence is so overwhelming is the best explanation of why people dispute the prevailing science. With the majority of the human population now living in urban areas and extremely disconnected from the natural world it is easy to be comfortable with an opinion that supports your current life style. Too many Americans live in such a tiny realm of existence that many have never even traveled out side of the state in which they were born... this can be verified from a lot of surveys  I have seen, I wish I had the time to show some links. So, with such limited experience of how drastically the world has changed in the past fifty years is beyond a lot of people's comprehension based on their limited experience.  

I continue to be amazed at the lack of conciseness, situational awareness and self image that some of our fellow Americans seem to take delight in showing off! This can only be possible when people are genuinely ignorant of the realities beyond their personal existence and experience.  Travel and exposure to other cultures, lifestyles and different ways of doing the same things in our lives should be a basic part of every child's education. There are too many adults out there that just don't get it, because nothing in their limited experience has shattered their perception of how they think the world and natural systems work. Nothing has  prepared them for the global problems we all have had a share in creating, so they have no interest in sharing in a solution and continue to be part of the problem.

How very sad, and frustrating for those of us that know better.

Answer 2

Ever heard of an Armchair Quarterback or Backseat Driver? I know you have, but the point is a lot of people think they know more than the scientists researching it, or they've thought of something scientists haven't. If they were that good, they wouldn't be beating their heads against the wall here on Y!/A.

But then again, some aren't here to enlighten us with facts, just propaganda and ideological spin (like Al Gore is liberal, therefore AGW is wrong). Those are the deniers.

Answer 3

People flap thier jaw about things they don't understand all the time.  Usually it becomes most dangerous when other people start to agree with them, then their argument seems stronger because it is a commonly held belief.  One example: religion.

Answer 4

Skeptics do understand the concepts. It is the global warming believers that ignore them.

Answer 5

You have convinced me.  The sky is falling, there is global warming.  So why not build nuclear power plants that do not pollute the atmosphere?  We have not built a nuke plant in thirty years.  Yes you end up with a small amount of spent radioactive fuel but there is no global warming from this energy source.  France leads the world in nuke power having started with an American, Westinghouse design back in the fifties.  Somehow the left wingers in France have been kept at bay while France solved its energy problem.  The same people who are warning us about global warming are blocking nuke plants in America.  Al Gore lives in a twenty room plus eight bath energy guzzling mansion in Nashville Tennessee.  The leader of the global warming crusade also has two other homes.  Global Warming enthusiasts, Brad and Angelina recently bought a home in New Orleans for 3.5 million although it is not in their names.

Answer 6

Global warming crowd has nothing to do with science. Its a faith based religion. A non intellectual endeavor.

Answer 7

There's nothing wrong with questioning the "prevailing" scientific opinions.  Assuming that a "prevailing" scientific opinion actually exists and is not a just a scheme by gorebull warming faithful to quite skeptics.

Then again you'll have to decide which, "prevailing opinion" you want to be skeptical about.  The one of a few years ago that the earth's temperature was going to rise x amount per decade due primarily to human activity.  Or the current "prevailing opinion" that gorebull warming due to human activity is going to be put on hold for the next 10 to 15 years while natural variations in climate cause the earth to cool during that time period.

Its pretty easy to say that you don't believe the climate experts because they are wrong so often.  You don't need vast scientific knowlege to know that in the 1970's the climate experts said the earth was cooling, then in the 90's they said the earth was warming, and it was caused by humans, now they say that it's cooling but that its natural variations in the climate (not caused by human activity).

Its also pretty easy to understand that regardless of how complex and how many variables are accounted for in the math models used to predict future climates that compared to the complexitiy of the earth's actual climate they are simplistic and very likely to be inaccurate as is being proved out by one of the top 30 coldest years on record, right in the middle of run away gorebull warming.

Answer 8

I had a mentor once and I said

"But what rational person would do that?"

His response?

"What makes you think people are rational?"

This will be solved when we get a charismatic leader who can sway the vast middle.

Tragically, those at the margins are lost causes.

--------------------------------------...

edit:

Great question Dana!

All these answers are great and right on point.  Every one of these should get 10 points.

“We live in an age of unreason. People are actually proud of their lack of education….They can't argue with the data so they attack the entire human knowledge quest. GW and evolution are the prime examples of this.”

“For a lot of those people, rather than admit that their actions could have harmful outcomes, they will deny there is a problem. Since most skeptics don't understand the basic physics enough to be able to make an objective assessment of the science, they go with what they want to believe. It's a simpler way to live.”

“There's nothing wrong with ignorance of a subject (we all are ignorant of some fields of study), unless the person acts like they have knowledge or understanding that they don't. A little humility by people, when it comes to discussing things well beyond their own academic or professional experience, would be a nice thing.”

“Very simple: ignorance and arrogance combined”

“Why do they attack the scientists? Probably because they don't realize how many years of hard work they've had to put in to get where they are, how meticulous most are in their research. Do most of the people who post here read abstracts or slog through the less accessible sites? No. It takes too much time and energy.”

“They don't really dispute it, they just pretend it's wrong and make stuff up…This person is attacking the hundreds of IPCC scientists… by claiming that they don't understand basic science.”

Answer 9

How does one dispute the science if they don't understand the basics?

Not very well, obviously.

Why do they attack the scientists?  Probably because they don't realize how many years of hard work they've had to put in to get where they are, how meticulous most are in their research.  Do most of the people who post here read abstracts or slog through the less accessible sites?  No.  It takes too much time and energy.

Being lazy and outspoken are not qualities that will take you very far in this life.  But on this site, they'll garner you points aplenty.

Answer 10

Give me one piece of evidence that directly links CO2 to warming in the real world. ONE.

Answer 11

"Here are a few examples and the field whose principles they violate:"

You mean the field "whose" PREVAILING OPINION they violate...I see no violated principles listed.

Since there are sciences dedicated to the study of supernatural events, it would be safe to assume you believe in ghosts and ESP, too...right?

An opinion can always be disputed.  A sound argument can't be.  When AGW proponents actually construct one, they may finally get somewhere.

Answer 12

I agree. I am truly skeptical about global warming by the way. I don't like it when people post "its cold outside, wheres global warming?" and all that kind of stuff. I believe global warming is happening. However I don't believe its caused by humans.

Answer 13

I think that's the problem with these AGW believers.  They don't even understand basic scientific facts.  After studying this issue for years I find that most of the ignoring of science and historical facts is done by these "believers."

And then they go around berating anyone who doesn't tow the line and go along with their crazy beliefs.

No one denies that the planet goes through warming and cooling periods, so saying someone is a "global warming skeptic" is narrow minded.

To believe that humans change the climate by just breathing out is both ignorant and asinine.  This is the kind of "science" that the AGW believers live by and the politicians are only too happy to follow suit because it means more power for them.

I consider these advocates of AGW to be made up mostly of deniers of natural science and find their inability to understand basic science rather annoying.  They often say they are scientists, but it seems doubtful they learned any science in high school or were indoctrinated by being forced to watch the Al Gore propaganda movie.

Answer 14

Very simple: ignorance and arrogance combined

Answer 15

Through out history consensus has such a poor track record of being correct that I wonder why anyone still follows this belief.

There may very well be good science behind the study of the climate, however we are not at the point where we can determine what the climate will be like any time in the future.

We shouldn't jump the gun and do something just for the sake of doing something as our actions could have a far worse effect than what we are trying to cure.

This doesn't mean that we shouldn't reduce, reuse, and recycle as we should all do our best to leave the world in a better place.  But many times I think we lose our focus.  I would rather see a world wide ban on the use of Leaded Gas, as that product is far more deadly and used in many countries around the world, and we know it's no longer needed.

When we have a better understanding of the climate, and we will in time, then we can make more logical decisions rather than political decisions as we are doing now.

Answer 16

Do you want to think that your lifestyle is possibly doing severe damage to the planet?  I don't mean do you rationally understand that your lifestyle is very likely damaging the planet, I mean do you *want* to think that it is?  Most people would answer yes, they would prefer to think their actions do no harm.  For a lot of those people, rather than admit that their actions could have harmful outcomes, they will deny there is a problem.  Since most skeptics don't understand the basic physics enough to be able to make an objective assessment of the science, they go with what they want to believe.  It's a simpler way to live.  

(note:  I don't mean to imply you live an extravagant life, but it is impossible for citizens of the U.S. not to use a disproportionate share of the world's resources.  I'm as guilty of having a lifestyle that is causing harm as you are.  In other words, I'm not pointing a finger at anyone.)

Answer 17

Same old rhetoric, nothing to prove AGW exists.

I can dispute it because I know how to read the statistics and develop an answer.  The answers point to warming, but not man-made.  It has been minor warming since the very flawed record keeping began, most likely the simple fact that we are coming out of an ice age.

Answer 18

I totally agree. I look to science for my answers, not stereotypical beliefs. I'm beginning to think people think global warming doesn't exist because (1) they're old and they don't have that much time left anyways, (2) they are rich and they want to be richer, like by selling oil or something, (3) They base their beliefs on what religion tells them to do. Idealogy is really dangerous, so a free thinker has to be even more dangerous =)

Answer 19

You make up information and post it in response in Yahoo Answers!  Then, you can reference it later as "fact."  It is the tool of some skeptics that are just following the dwindling herd!

Answer 20

It's pretty easy when you look at their underlying motivations.

Answer 21

We live in an age of unreason. People are actually proud of their lack of education. You hear this all over the right wing radio shows- these people constantly attack academia and flaunt their lack of education in an attempt to undermine those pesky facts that are interfering with their ideology. They can't argue with the data so they attack the entire human knowledge quest. GW and evolution are the prime examples of this.

Answer 22

When someone wants to levy taxes and impose restrictions on me, I can voice my opinion no matter what level of expertise I have.  Otherwise we would have tests to find the smartest person for each issue and they would decide.  We could then get rid of all the politicians and pundits.

Answer 23

I read a Psychology article once that said people tend to stick with what they first hear if it's repeated over and over, regardless if they have info later that proves the theory wrong in the future. IE-The myth that Al Gore said he invented the internet. He said it sarcastically to prove a point but it was taken 'out of context' and I STILL hear people say or even I see it written in other articles that he said he had.

I also heard an interview with a psychologist who said that most humans just need 'doubt' to decide that something is not very important. No facts, just doubt. He was talking about AGW but he claimed that finding was actually based on a study about other things. Between that and the desire to stick their head in the sand and have it 'go away', it'll take a miracle to get some people to come to their senses.

Answer 24

There's nothing wrong with ignorance of a subject (we all are ignorant of some fields of study), unless the person acts like they have knowledge or understanding that they don't.  A little humility by people, when it comes to discussing things well beyond their own academic or professional experience, would be a nice thing.  But civil discourse and intellectual honesty takes more effort than some are willing to put forth.

Answer 25

being that you seem to know everything I'll make sure I clear everything with you before i post it

Answer 26

They don't really dispute it, they just pretend it's wrong and make stuff up.  I mean look at Question Everything's answer to your question, where he/she/it says

"I consider these advocates of AGW to be made up mostly of deniers of natural science and find their inability to understand basic science rather annoying. They often say they are scientists, but it seems doubtful they learned any science in high school or were indoctrinated by being forced to watch the Al Gore propaganda movie."

This person is attacking the hundreds of IPCC scientists, most of them tops in their fields, by claiming that they don't understand basic science.  I wanted to find out more about this person, but Question Everything doesn't allow any sort of contact, and even keeps their questions and answers private (probably because they're so idiotic).

Same way with evans_michael_ya, he doesn't want you to contact him, because he might have to think about or learn something. He also keeps his questions and answers private. People do that because they realize they wouldn't stand up to scrutiny.

Caribbean Mongoose is the same way.  Who knows?  Maybe they're all the same uneducated person, running multiple accounts to prop up their statistics.

I doubt that any one of these people has taken a look at the IPCC report, they're not interested in learning about it.