Why do AGW believers think skeptics are unducated or are just plain stupid?

Question

Yes a couple of questions i asked usually ended in "Because they are uneducated and have never done anything in the field of sciene" sort of responses. Why do you think we are uneducated? I am not qualified to be called educated because im in high school but i know many skeptics aren't UNEDUCATED, also i'll tie another question into this why do you think us skeptics don't care about the environment? I care about the environment but global warming is somethign i doubt too much. Also please no links to AGW is real sites and please don't try and prove AGW is real here cause im pretty sure 10 questions above or below has that sort of battlefield

Answer 1

because it doesn't even take being educated to know that Global warming is real and here all it takes is being old enough and to have seen the climate change, in the area I grew up in the  lake used to freeze out as far as the eye could see, for the first 15 years of my life almost, it hasn't done that in 20 years now and the summers have just been getting hotter and hotter and the winters more and more mild every year, also if you have done any studying at all of the greenhouse effect you'd open your eyes and be like yeah wow I see it now but go on ahead and be a skeptic and get back to me on that in another 20 years

Answer 2

Don't knock your educational background because you're only in high school.  When my son was in high school he was in Advanced Placement classes, including the Model United Nations program, and the training he received there was nothing short of phenomenal and helped to prepare him for assuming an active role in his future workplace and in the community.

So sorry if some believers intentionally or inadvertently put down those who don't agree with them.  That's not a smart tactic, as you seldom win someone over to your cause by insulting them!

You specify no sites be contributed, and I will respect that request.  But our government, many other nations, in particular the UK and Europa, and many prestigious universities have wonderful sites available that you should keep an eye on so that you can be informed and can be part of the dialogue that is going on.  There are 2 main levels of discussion.  One among the laymen, and one among the academics and scientists.  By being informed, you can assess and interpret information in either realm.

Some of the believers who deride your ability to understand the issue are well intentioned, perhaps letting their passion get the better of them.  Others just need to brush up on their people skills.  And some are just plain mean, I suppose.

Answer 3

Have you ever been to a university campus?  They're full of left wing types who believe they are in the process of saving the world.  If you're a reformist in an environment like that, it's easy to start thinking that you really are saving the world.  Since university students are fairly intelligent (or at least according to themselves they are) - anyone who disagrees with your point of view must be uneducated and probably stupid.

Actually not all universities are like that.  When I was doing my engineering degree, at one point I had to walk down the road from University of Adelaide to University of South Australia to attend lectures in a business subject.  U of A is a bit hippy, loads of people in hippy type clothes poster adds for left wing political clubs with names like Resitance, Direct Action, pictures of Che Guvara everywhere.  Down the road in U of SA was full of busness students and the place was like a designer label fashion show.  No last seasons atire in sight  - cept for me and the other U of A vistors of course who looked like hobos by comparison.  Nobody trying to save the world there.

It takes all kinds to make a world.

Answer 4

"Study the greenhouse effect".

d**n it, I knew we forgot something....

Answer 5

To answer your question directly:  Your grammar and spelling give you away.   The same is true of most skeptics I've run into.    

I'm not about to waste time explaining millions of tons of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere vs.  millions of square miles of CO2 scrubbing forests leveled.   The calculations would go over your head.  

Geologists and archaeologists can show times in the distant past when high CO2 levels caused the same sort of heating effect.  Plants evolved, multiplied,  and brought the levels down.   Unfortunately, humans are doing their best to take plants out of the equation, while increasing emissions at an accelerated rate.  

Global warming is fact.    Can we predict the exact impact on any given location at any given time?  No, that's a bit beyond our ability to measure and calculate.    That doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Answer 6

Because the theory behind the greenhouse effect is so basic even the EDUCATED skeptics knows about it. The educated skeptics doesn't argue whether greenhouse gases makes the global climate on earth warmer or not. Neither do they argue that human emissions has increased the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere. What they question is only how big this effect is, whether it will be neutralized by some other variables or how severe a future warming may be to earth. They may also question how to best solve the problem.

Someone arguing the greenhouse effect or the fact that human emissions disturbs the natural carbon cycle IS uneducated or plain stupid (For example those who goes for the myth that volcanoes emits more CO2 than human do). If they are not prepared to learn basic facts, they are not skeptics, but plain deniers. I hope this doesn't include you?

There's no doubt what so ever, the greenhouse effect is important and sooner or later (if it hasn't already) it will affect the earth climate if we don't change our behavior regarding CO2. CO2 emissions are steadily increasing EACH and EVERY year. For me, it's not about how much increase in temps this has caused the past hundred years, but what this will mean to our future climate. That's my main concern and for the sake of my kids, and every young people on this planet, I don't dare to take the risk that these changes only will be minor if we do nothing.

Edit to harshmistressmoon:

- "I notice that the AGW believers that answered your question have no scientific or logical answers themselves"

That wasn't his question and he explicitly asked not to be pointed to some "AGW is real" sites".

- "greenhouse gases are a result of warming".

This is actually another concern that this warming will trigger even higher concentrations of greenhouse gases, a feedback. - You're not among the "uneducated" who claims humans doesn't increase CO2 are you? (See this "state-of-knowledge-link": http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science...

-"brainwashed, by the way, always think those that are not brainwashed are "uneducated"."

What makes you think you're not the one being fooled and brainwashed? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...

Answer 7

I prefer the term willfully ignorant.

edit:

Thanks Ken, well said.

Answer 8

I notice that the AGW believers that answered your question have no scientific or logical answers themselves.

They can't prove that humans have any direct effect on the temperature of the earth. They can only use associations, which are very slim associations at best.

They can't tell you what the correct temperature of the earth is.

They fail to point out that greenhouse gases are a result of warming (like water vapor), not a cause.

The brainwashed, by the way, always think those that are not brainwashed are "uneducated".

Answer 9

I think most of it boils down to the AGW believers having such strong opinions and honestly believe that they are 100% correct in their beliefs, that anyone who questions their belief has got to be either ignorant to the facts, uneducated, stupid, etc…

This helps the AGW believers to justify their beliefs so they feel better about themselves since it would dent their pride, ego, whatever you wish to call it, to admit that they just might be wrong.

This is common nature.

People do this. Many people are completely incapable (no matter how intelligent), of admitting they do not understand something, nor are they willing to admit ignorance on a particular subject.

People today have a huge minefield to stumble through to actually get any truth on nearly any subject.

Their information is delivered to them in the media, and the Internet.

If everything that was published on the Internet was true, and the media gave proper scientists equal publicity, this subject would be left where it belongs, in ‘Academia Land’!

Since most people have no basic scientific knowledge, it is easy for them to be deceived, especially when the so-called evidence seems to support their belief.

There are radical elements on both sides of this issue, which does not help either!

When one side makes a stupid and unfounded statement, this can be seen as provocation to the other side. Sometimes this leads to even more outrageous claims, or a point is reached where an incorrect comment will be said at the time.

Some totally insane comments, which have got to be addressed, which are so outrageous that it is mind boggling are things like:

1) VENUS IS A HOT PLANET. This is because of its high concentration of CO2 in its atmosphere, and even though it is twice as far away from the Sun than Mercury, and Mercury is a colder planet, this proves without a ‘Shadow of a Doubt’ that carbon dioxide is a ‘Greenhouse Gas’ and that the Sun is not responsible for temperature!

This comment completely ignores any science whatsoever.

First of all, Mercury and Venus both reach 800 degrees Fahrenheit during their days (rotation on their axis is 59 earth days for Mercury and 243 earth days for Venus.)

Earth would get extremely hot also, if we were in constant daylight for 30 to 122 days at a time.

Also, the fact that Mars, which is nearly identical to earth in it’s rotation, has nearly the same concentration of CO2 gas, as Venus, and yet is an extremely cold planet.(96% CO2 for Venus, 95% for Mars)

2) 3,000 species a year are now going extinct!

This comment really makes me have to wonder where they get this information.(or is it just made up?)

3) Man’s use of fossil fuels is responsible for 95% of CO2 emissions!

This is completely false. Even at current fossil fuel consumption world-wide, it only accounts for 1.4 to 1.5% of CO2 levels, so the actual percentage of atmospheric CO2 which is man made only accounts for 1.5% of .038% for a total of .00057% of earth’s atmosphere.( this is assuming the worse-case conditions and data. The actual figure is probably closer to 1/4 of that at .00014%).

4) Carbon Dioxide is a dangerous ‘Greenhouse Gas’!

CO2 is necessary for all life to exist on this planet. Without it there would be no life.

5) Carbon Dioxide causes ‘Global Warming’!

The fact is that increased concentrations of atmospheric CO2 levels is not a cause of warming temperature trends, but is an effect which occurs after those periods of time.

6) We are experiencing the most rapid rises in temperature ever recorded in history, and began 200 years ago, with the greatest rises in the last 20 years!

This type of statement is complete lunacy.

There is no way of doing any accurate analysis of global temperatures prior to 40 or 50 years ago. Since what few temperature records were done prior to that time were few and far between and most of those records were done more for curiosity sake, rather than as a useful scientific tool to be used at some future date, accuracy was not important nor was it possible to be as accurate as our technology permits today.

Also prior to 1724, there was no way of measuring temperature, since the thermometer had not yet been invented.

I could list more, but I hope I’ve made my point.

    

I believe that many AGW believers really care about the environment and want to make a change, and so do I, but believing in myths is not going to benefit anyone!

I find it somewhat funny that I can be labelled either a skeptic or a denier, when my only belief is in science.

I now have to believe that the true deniers are the followers of the AGW theory, since they seem to not be able to accept any proper science!(my opinion)

The other thing I find a bit funny is that I get attacked from both extreme sides of this issue.

Since I was raised and taught not to waste anything, I have been re-using and recycling all of my life.

I began recycling back in the 1960’s, long before it was fashionable.

When I point out to someone how much they waste, I get accused of being a ‘tree hugger’.

When I point out basic science to a believer in AGW theory, I get accused of being a rich conservative who couldn’t care less for the environment.

Both extreme statements are completely wrong however.

Answer 10

No necessarily uneducated.  There are people with PhDs who are skeptical about AGW.

Ignorance and a lack of education are not the same thing.  You can have 10 PhDs in unrelated fields, but that doesn't mean you know jack squat about global warming.

AGW skeptics are almost universally ignorant about the science behind global warming, as is abundantly clear if you observe their questions and answers in this section.  That's not an insult either - I'm ignorant about plenty of subjects.  If you need open heart surgery, don't ask me, I'm ignorant about it.  

What bugs me is when people are ignorant about a subject and yet form an opinion about it anyway, and refuse to change that opinion when presented with the facts.  That's willful ignorance, which is why I prefer the term "deniers" to "skeptics".  A skeptic keeps an open mind and learns about a subject.  A denier does not.  If you're a true skeptic then good for you - they're few and far between.

Answer 11

Stupid is an insult and shouldn't be used in any civil discourse.  But the word ignorant (or uneducated) simply means someone hasn't been exposed to certain information. We are all ignorant and uneducated in some areas of human knowledge.

You are correct in stating that there are intelligent and educated people that don't accept AGW.  But being intelligent or educated in one field doesn't make a person knowledgeable about another field.  A brilliant chemist may have less accurate information about climate science than a High School dropout that spends time reading material from real climate scientists.

Some of the doubters around here are simply ignorant to a lot of information about climate science.  That doesn't mean they are stupid, it just means they haven't invested sufficient time and effort into studying a very complex field of science that's be intensely studied over the past 40 years.

There are also some "doubters" around here who intentionally post misleading, deceptive, or clearly false information. They either consider this all a game and don't care about the truth, or they are simply so blinded by their own bias that they can't see their own obvious errors.

It's not always easy to tell the difference between someone who's ignorant, but open to learn, and someone who's being intentionally disingenuous or closed-minded.

Answer 12

The problem here, is if you don't agree, you are a bad person.

You hate the planet, you want no future for our children, and you are selfish.

Then we get into the uneducated and just plain stupid.

You know, if you drive a car or a truck, you haft to be a red neck,  don't you know there are scooters out there?   How dare you resist the indoctrination of the left.  

What is that term?   Oh Yeah,  Resistance is futile.

Answer 13

It's all due to them wanting to feel superior to anyone who states they don't believe in AGW. I know the theory, so I did my own research on alot of different factors that effect our climate. That's how I learned we had already hit the peak of the warming trend and are about to hit a large cooling trend. But they still like calling me stupid, since I refuse to believe what they believe in. I bet ten years from now when we are solidly in this cooling trend they will still believe the climate is warming up or try to claim that the cooling was all part of global warming, since they hate the idea of being wrong.

Answer 14

Not all of those who accept AGW think skeptics are uneducated or stupid.  There are those on both sides of the issue that are highly educated and respectful.   However environmental issues are like politics they bring out strong emotions and that's when the debate becomes like politicians throwing mud at each other.