How do you decide?

Question

who to believe on controversial issues when both sides present evidence from experts who are highly regarded by their peers?

For example, global warming and the oil shortage. Ignoring how you feel about Al Gore, politics, the news media, and whatnot, how do you know whether or not the expert in whom you believe has the right analysis, or is even close? Also, how do you know your experts do not have an agenda, and are not being influenced by their affiliations or funding source(s)?

I'm pretty old, and have seen a lot of information presented to the public, only to be discovered later that it was deliberate misinformation designed to provide plausible deniability.

Answer 1

Wait for objective science.  Opinions, beliefs, and consensus have no place is science.

[Edit] No one argues or debates the distance the Earth is from the Sun.  When we can calculate what the temperature of the climate will be, without personal opinion, then we will have objective conclusion.

Answer 2

I see contradictory information...

Answer 3

The initial thing is to sort out the "meat" from the noise on an issue.

For example--the validity of man-made global warming is a matter of science. Period--not politics, not opinion, not ideology or agendas.  Once you know that, its fairly easy to focus on what actual scientists are saying.  And-no offense, but if you haven't taken the minimal amount of time to learn how to spot real versus fake science, you deserve to get confused and misled. Its NOT hard.

BTW (thugh this is outside your question--there is no "evidence" against global warming, man-made or otherwise--not in leigitimate science).

When--and only when, you havve gotten to the point of knowing these empirical facts, then you can start thinking aoout what policies ought to be implemented. That DOES involve politics.  There are always trade-offs, and different people's interests and values will be affected--and here there is room for disagreement and debate.

For myself, I don't view the anti-global warming rhetoric at all seriously--because even if they did have a shered of evidence, their basic arguement--that the status quo of our energy policy and systems should be unchanged--is simply stupid economics.

Why?  First, there are a wealth of new products and technologies that can SAVE consumers money. One of the first--and the best known at this pint, is the compact flourescent bulb. Ask yourself why the "skeptics" oppose a technology that saves consumers money?  Much the same can be said fror better fuel efficiency incars--why oppose a move that will reduce your energy costs?

My point--there is very good reason to change the way we produce and use enrgy--frr purely economic reasons.  Global warming, however, is important. That is not simply a matter of economics--it is a matter of survival.  Educate yourself--that is how (and it  is the only way) you can decide.  Don't make the effort--and you make yorself a sheep ready to be led wheerever demagogues happen to wnat you to go.

Answer 4

Skepticism is almost always the wisest choice.  For example, it is easy to conclude that we are running out of oil.  Obviously, it is a finite resource and we are using more than ever.  The problem is that it involves more hype than fact.   You can go back to the 1800s and find they predicted they were running out of oil back then.  You can look back in hind sight and laugh at them but the same mistakes have been made repeatedly since then.  Jimmy Carter said we had 20 years left.  Suddenly, now we are supposed to believe, that we have reached the peak oil, and now we are in trouble.  The problem is a psychological one, not a lack of oil.  There is a sizable portion of the population, that would never admit it, (the insane rarely do) that can't help but fall for the scare scenarios.  Global warming is a similar thing.  You claim to be old, but are you old enough to remember when it was much cooler?  Probably not.  Yet you have convinced yourself that we are headed for doom in our blanket of pollution, yet interestingly, our air is cleaner and our water is cleaner.  I am sure that you wouldn't let facts get in your way.  The fact is, warming is generally good.  Those that don't recognize that are gullible in my opinion or just prone to go along with the latest scare job.

Answer 5

These folks are pretty good referees of who is right.

The National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Chemical Society, the American Meteorological Association, etc.

EVERY major scientific organization says global warming is real, and mostly caused by us.  To think these diverse and long established and respected organizations would support "deliberate misinformation" is carrying conspiracy theories to new heights.

There have been scientific frauds.  Typically they are individuals.  To think that thousands of climatologists all over the world are engaged in some giant conspiracy is not credible.

By the way, the relatively small number of "skeptics" do make a conspiracy theory about them plausible.  But, I don't think that's what's happening, either.

Answer 6

I agree, there are a lot of people you can't trust. And some people will even make things fit into their belief so they wont be proved wrong. I think its all a bunch of B.S. and I am not sure who or what to believe.