If 99 scientists out of 100 say global warming is real, should you believe the 1 instead?

Question

EVERY major scientific organization has issued an official statement that this is real, and mostly caused by us. The National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Association, etc.

"The fact that the community overwhelmingly supports the consensus is evidenced by picking up any copy of Journal of Climate or similar, any scientific program at the meetings, or simply going to talk to scientists. I challenge you, if you think there is some un-reported division, show me the hundreds of abstracts that support your view - you won't be able to. You can argue whether the consensus is correct, or what it really implies, but you can't credibly argue it doesn't exist."

NASA's Gavin Schmidt

Answer 1

Let me start out by saying, I do not have the scientific knowledge to either confirm or repudiate global warming.

But what this reminds me of is, people in a large building, and someone yells fire.

As a result of this, you will have people running for the nearest exit, screaming we are going to die, we are going to die.

while others realize that if there is a fire in the building, they need to make a hasty exit, and leave the building.

While you have other standing around, and saying I do see any fire, and I don't smell any smoke, therefore I don't believe that there is a fire, and it is just someone hollering fire to scare people, so I am not going to do anything.

where the logical thing to do, is to leave the building and wait and see if it was indeed on fire.

What we need to do, is to take the warning and react to it, as if it is true, doing what is necessary to alleviate the problem, instead of going into denial and refusing to do anything.

obviously some of us cannot do as much about it as others can, but we can all do the part that we can.

Answer 2

Don't use Galileo as an example--he DIDN'T have data to back him up.  He could have used Kepler's data, but he did not (he was kind of arrogant that way).  In fact, many of the priest astronomers agreed with his ideas, but the evidence wasn't there (and he didn't want their help either).

Of course, as a scientific community goes, we should take the the side that the data supports and what most scientists say.

HOWEVER:  that DOES NOT mean that those 99 are right.  Part of the challenge of science is the idea that you never know 100% how something is working.  There could very well still be some underlying mechanism that we don't understand.

As scientists, we always have to be cautious--but not so cautious that we don't act.  It is clear that we do need to act now.  In this case, even if the science is somehow wrong, the world will be a better place if we cut down on our use of gas and oil anyways.

Everything supports us acting now to stop our use of these products.

Answer 3

The gelatinous blob actually has something of a valid point.  The consensus itself, while a useful measure of the expert opinion on the subject, is itself not proof of anything.  If you're capable of understanding the science, a person should evaluate it for himself.

The problem is that many people are not capable of understanding the science.  Global warming is not simple science.  The basics aren't that complicated - increasing CO2 increases the greenhouse effect which causes warming - but the nuances are complex.

When a person doesn't understand the science but believes otherwise, that's when problems arise.  Especially when the person allows his personal biases to impact his assessment of the science, for example seeking information from James Inhofe and junkscience.com instead of getting it directly from scientists.

When a person doesn't understand the science, that's when expert opinion becomes critical.  Personally I certainly don't understand all the nuances of AGW, but on the basics I agree with the experts, and on the issues I don't understand I defer to their conclusions.

The problem is when a person doesn't understand the science and rejects the consensus of the experts for no good reason except that it goes against his personal and/or political agenda.  Then they say things like "we just don't understand the science well enough", which actually means "I don't understand and I reject the experts' opinions because I don't like their conclusions."  Then they cite the 1 in 100 like Fred Singer and Tim Ball, as though the opinions of a few outliers disprove the conclusions of the vast majority.

Answer 4

If the one is like Galileo... but... how will we know the one is correct over the other 99? That's the hard question to answer. Do we go by gut instincts or do we look into reports from NOAA, NASA and other places that have the funding to go to places we can't, to see what they see?

That's why I like satelite images, and reading about the ocean and it's effect on the climate.

That's why I still feel the question: If all you had was where you live to go on, how would you know that the climate was changing? Is still a very pertinent.

Unfortunately, no one can think outside the box and answer the question.

I can and I have answered it with answers I've given to other questions.

Winters in Minnesota had become milder, during the 90's and started to trend colder again these past 10 years. That's my backyard observation that I have noticed a change in the climate and that I'm paying close attention to the climate here in Minnesota. I also don't restrict this to my own state, but to the entire upper midwest.

I've also paid close attention to the trees this summer to see which ones recovered after the drought we had last year and which ones didn't.

Edit: Hannah's Grandma, your analogy is flawed, due to the fact that we are talking about spending tax dollars and peoples hard earned money (Due to changing vehicles and upgrading appliances, and maybe these people, apartment complexs or what have you, can't afford to do that.) to combat something we don't know we have any affect on in the first place.

Go ahead and look for alternative energy sources, but stop making people feel bad about what type of vehicle they drive, since you don't know what type of finacial situation they're in.

So this isn't like calling "Fire" in a building. Or kids pulling the fire alarm in an apartment complex, just because they think it would be fun to do so.

Answer 5

A jury of 12 convict innocent men all the time, based upon the evidence at hand.  We don't even have evidence in this case, only an idea (that idea being man is evil and separate from the rest of the biosphere).  All historical data gathered to date suggests the Sun drives climate change on this planet, and CO2 is a TRAILING indicator of that change.  If the one out of a hundred scientists makes such a statement, I'm siding with him or her over the other 99 who've lost their way.

Answer 6

Hey, Bob.

I do find some common ground between my opinion and those expressed by Dana and the "gelatinous blob", but I think we diverge on some points.

Yes, people should investigate science for themselves if they understand it, and yes, it seems there is a similarity between this situation and that of Galileo (and others).

But, there are a couple of huge distinctions that need to be made here.

First, while people should investigate science to the best of their abilities, is it not the responsibility of scientists to make themselves understood as succinctly as possible? I know that when we build water delivery structures in West Africa, we need to force the point of maintenance home as simply as possible for most people. That's part of our due diligence to the people we are trying to help.

As for the similarity to Galileo's plight, the only similarity that those opposed to ACC share with Galileo is their contrary situation to the scientific consensus. However, the comparison of how Galileo's situation came to be with that of the "skeptics" provides some real insight into the scientific community's evolution.

Galileo's persecution came as a result of his development of a theory that was incongruent with the party line of the church, which, subsequently, was against most political stand points. His persecution was derived from his development of a science. Galileo was also unfortunate enough to have been born in a time when scientists were few and far between.

"Skeptics" have not been persecuted as Galileo was. They encounter resistance from the scientific community because their beliefs are actually the entrenched ones that science is trying to break. In fact, if most skeptics and some politicians had their way, I believe, scientists supporting the conclusion of ACC would be persecuted. Ironically, Galileo and the "skeptic" have nothing else in common, and in fact, are on entirely different sides of the comparative situations.

Galileo challenged the norm and accepted truths and was persecuted for it. Modern day supporters of ACC science are challenging the norm and accepted truths, and face stern opposition from the state and lobbyist groups. That's the true parallel that exists in that comparison.

Now then, there is absolutely no reason to follow the minority in this instance, because one should not hold the fate of the earth on lone studies. That's not to say that their findings should be discredited or ignored, of course, which is what I believe many "skeptics" believe climate studies do.

When researching, we test a hypothesis or null hypothesis, to see if the results of experimentation, investigation, or evaluation support that hypothesis or refute it. Truly, the point is to try and refute your hypotheses. If one cannot do this, they are supporting their hypotheses.

So, if we are researching ACC, we are not looking for ways to prove it is true, we are trying to prove it is not.

To answer your question, people believe the "1" scientist because they are not scientists. The truth is that you cannot be a cafeteria scientist and pick and choose what you want to believe. We all have to take each other's findings and evaluate them without bias. That's the burden of science.

By the way, Mr. Right, 9,000 PhDs signed that petition which did not, in any way, contain a shred of documented evidence to refute ACC. All it was is a gesture to say that they don't believe that it's caused by human activities. Now, I know that it hurts to have a strawman blown down, but let's also look at the fact that the people signing the petition are, to the best of my knowledge, not climate specialists and they have not undertaken any sort of study that refutes climate change.

If we consulted all of the PhDs in the world on the matter and the result was overwhelmingly that climate change is occurring because of mankind's actions, would you accept that?

Star for you, Bobbo.

Answer 7

The short answer is BS. The news last weeks was full of former believer scientific types that stated that the data that has been used in the computer models was flawed and off by as much as a factor of 1000.

Answer 8

One should believe scientists, but you should make sure whatever scientist you are listening too is not partison... because if they are they shouldn't be a scientist.

Scientists and there studies are often used by politicians and lobbyists to get their opinion across because they know scientists are one of the most trusted groups in the world as they are expected to present the facts and possible reasons for these facts and nothing else. Some scientist have different opinions and do their best to come up with orginal theories even if it means going against popular opinion. This is good for the scientific community because it staves off stagnation and provides more options should the popular theory be proven wrong.

However, politicians are always squabbling with each other and use that 1 in 100 scientist as evidence just so they can get their agenda across. They don't care what is truth or fiction and they don't care whethor something is a just a theory or not... if it supports their opinion its the bible.

Answer 9

If 99 of 100 scientists are wrong and politically motivated, of course you should acknowledge their bias and their errors.

Answer 10

There are more bozo the clowns than there are Galileo's so usually betting against the 1 is the better bet if you can't figure things out on your own.

Answer 11

what dr jello said

Answer 12

That depends.  Are the 99 scientists receiving part of the 5 billion dollars annually allocated by the government to the study of global warming?

Answer 13

lol bob...how's the kool-aid today?  oh and by the way, did you know that over 35,000 phd's recently signed a letter refuting the "man-made climate change" scam?  did you know that bob?  how 'bout a nice Hawaiian punch instead?

Answer 14

Honestly,it is about the person who is looking at this though.

U CAN believe him but i think it is not practical though as this is a FACT now.

True enough that it is caused by us the beings as only us can cause the co2 and carbon monoxide to be produced in this living world here.

Answer 15

Oh wow, this must be the one scientist!  

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/sto...

It's hard for me to follow that.  Anyhow, I don't know, they all have good points to make.  Here's a thought...  Whether or not CO2 is the cause, what about that point in which plants start putting out CO2 instead of oxygen?  WTF was that about?  Seriously, I feel that we all need to forget about Global Warming and AGW and consider pollution in general...  For instance, I live next to some company that puts out something, like sulfur, it gives me a headache, makes me dizzy, and nauseous.

Answer 16

Come on  consensus is not science,  science is not up to a vote or a majority of agreement its really about seeking and discovering the truth.   And if the one person is correct then the other 99 are wrong no matter how loud they yell.

Answer 17

Notice how bob throws out an assumption, one in a hundred scientist don't think humans are destroying the planet, and Dana runs with that number as if it is a fact.  That is how alarmism works.  They are willing to believe anything as long as it fits their agenda.

Answer 18

Bob this is reminiscent of the times when 99 out of 100 scientist thought the Earth was the center of the universe.

No one should believe ANY scientist, or their opinions.  They should only believe the facts.

And the facts still are that no one knows if it will be warmer or colder anytime in the future regardless of the concentrations of co2.

Answer 19

Did you notice that many of the 99 are now pulling their signatures because the political pressure has eased up and because the data does not support the lie. As long as the political pressure eases, the scientists no longer have to agree with the big lie in order to get continued funding, now they can tel the truth.

Answer 20

Bob, although I agree with you that global warming is real, it appears to me that the stories that global warming is going to be a great catastrophe where we will all drown or fry like sausages are ridiculous scare stories that have just been made up to scare us.

We have families to raise and mortgages to pay.

It is ridiculous that the global warming nuts think that we must get rid of our cars and ride bicycles or walk.

I have to commute over 50 miles to work.

I am not going to ride a bicycle to work to satisfy the global warming nuts.

Answer 21

Bob,

All it takes is ONE to make 99 conformists look pretty stupid.

Galileo sort of comes to mind as one example.

Edit:  ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚€ÂœFew people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions.” Albert Einstein

Answer 22

It depends on what Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill Oreilly, and Glenn Beck say, as well as conservative think tanks which are sponsored by oil companies. See, there has to be a balance between the scientists and the political pundits. We don't know for sure whether AGW is true, so we have to pretend like it isn't as long as there's money at stake. Until every last piece of ice on the planet is melted, there is still an equal 50-50 argument to be made for both sides.

Answer 23

You can't fight the Dunning-Kruger effect.