Why do deniers think that non-scientists are better at science than scientists?

Question

I really don't get this. The scientific background for anthropogenic global warming is in virtually every modern textbook, yet deniers seem to go to talk show hosts and non-scientist bloggers for all their information. Why is that? What makes you think these people are better at science than scientists?

Answer 1

Because the non-scientists tell them what they want to hear.  The scientists don't.

Answer 2

Your statement implies there is a scientific consensus on AGW, this is simply false. See http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images... for an explanation on how there is little concensus.

http://mclean.ch/climate/What_consensus_...

I suggest you watch "the great global warming swindle" which has many top scientist in there field quiestioing AGW.

Than there is the NIPCC which consists of cleading climate scientists:

http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC_f...

Then there is the International Climate Science Coalition who are fighting IPCC's stance:

http://www.climatescienceinternational.o...

Then there is the Manhatten Declaration (http://www.climatescienceinternational.o... here are the signors at the declaration:

http://www.climatescienceinternational.o...

Then those who signed since:

http://www.climatescienceinternational.o...

Then there is the climate realist declaration which currently has 1,100 signatories

Heres a paper from Dr Vincent Gray one of the leading IPCC reviewers detailing the issues with the IPCC and their conclusions:

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/...

Former NASA modeller exposes IPCC errors:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Hey-Nobe...

As you can see with just a few sources there is no concensus, and a huge amount of scientists oposed to AGW. Many still keep quiet over concerns of funding loss, or being involved in smear campaigns. Many scientists who have spoke out have been accused of working for oil companies falsely, some have received death threats - See the great global warming swindle.

View it online:

http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/great_g...

Chapter 9 of the IPCC was produced by only 44 scientists, most of which worked together or had co-authored with each. Most were climate modellers rather than climate scientists and most have conflicts of interest i.e. they work for the Hadly Centre modelling climate change.

The AGW skeptics do not simply base their argument on emotion, or blog posts from nobodies, they have actually done research on both sides and have realised there is no concensus. It is only the politcally driven science groups that purport AGW as that was their object, to prove a link could exist.

Anyone who suggest there is a concensus on AGW is completely wrong and has done little research on the subject.

There are now many scientists now forcasting global cooling for the foreseable future.

"Do not guide the truth but let the truth guide you"

And I dont know how many times I am going to have to say this but AGW is still an un-proven theory, even the IPCC aknowledge a link between man made co2 and warming has never been proven, as its almost impossible to prove. How can their be a concensus then?

"when all men think alike, no one thinks very much"

Answer 3

You mean to tell me that prestigious Universities like Harvard and MIT (to name but a few) employ non scientists in their science departments?

Skeptic blogs merely repeat what skeptic scientists say.

If you want to dispute what they say that is another thing.  But to say we get our info from non scientists is wrong.

If you look at your link, many of the facts that they claim are backed up with references.  Here is a link to the first reference.  If you look at the bottom you will see references to scientific journals.  http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm

Answer 4

You may want to open your experiences up a bit. If you are saying you can not find any scientist who does not believe in AGW, then your eyes are closed really tight. Many of the IPCC's scientist do not believe the lie. Some of the top scientist have publicly come out against the theory. Others used to believe it, but changed their minds after they started to do work in the field.

Also, what I find are many people site blogs/articles that reference the actual study. This means you may need to click another link to get to the actual scientific article.

Also, your arguement goes both ways. I also get tired of hearing outrageous claims from  AGW supporters such as, "50/50% chance the North pole is ice free". No science here, just some bodies statement. Then the statement gets transmitted world wide. How about the polar bear fiasco? Politicians are trying to get polar bear endangered (may already have happened) because of a picture a lady took of 2 bears on an ice floe. The bears were fine, but the news picked up the story as they are all dying. Bunch of BS. One big difference, AGW supporters want to enact laws based on no science. "Skeptics" just want to openly debate the issue and get the facts out, as we know the facts are on our side.

Answer 5

Because the information in the science textbooks, and I hate to say it, is quite inconvenient for them to hear. They feel better sticking their heads in the sand rather than facing the harsh facts.

http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/clim...

vicinic - James Hansen, NASA, there is one well respected scientist. And you're no scientist. Scientists present facts and you apparently have none to post.

Answer 6

no you are wrong.  I'm a scientist and the data I have says no to AGW.  You listened to Uncle AL, he's not a scientist.  All you believers follow non scientist.  I bet 99% of the people who believe in AGW can not name one scientist that has made a claim either for AGW or against it.  But I bet they name 10 celebrities that are for AGW

Stop insulting those that do not believe the data is interpreted correctly.  Calling people deniers is an insult and against Yahoo policy.

I can't speak for all, but the sides break down into 3 groups.  Those that believe man has been the sole creater of all precieved problems with the earth.  Those that say what problems? (very very few,  and third, those that say that man is not the one to create problems with the earth and all the data is saying there is no direct cause and effect of man and the measures of temperature of the air. The last group of scientist believe that data is is being used to manipulate humans.  That the selective use of data is being used by everyone.  Dr. Juran is rolling in his grave  as is Dr Demming over the use of slogans and misuse of data to try to bring a random process under control, when its in control.  The data presented by the world scientist shows that the earth is in control and that we cannot make adjustments like you can adjusting say a thermostat.

I point out that by just doind a simple heat balance of the earth, you'd see that air temp has nothing to do with global warming indicators.  Do that balance.

In sumarry, call those that oppose YOUR VIEW, scientists with other interpertations.....

Answer 7

What science are you referring to?  That of the IPCC or NASA GISS?  I wouldn't rely on either of them, they do tend to sort and re-write data to further their agenda, and like other alarmist mongrels are in it for the money.  I'm much more comfortable listening to real scientists like those of the Manhattan Declaration, or the abundance of other reliable and honest and uncorrupted scientists who don't ask us to believe in fairy tales.  The quality of their science surpasses anything the agw crowd can toss together.

Answer 8

That's denial - you accept any information which supports what you want to believe.  If some right-wing think tank tells you the sun is to blame, then they're more reliable than the tens of thousands of climate scientists saying humans are to blame.  Those guys are obviously just part of some elaborate conspiracy to raise taxes, or something like that.

There's no logic to it.  There's no valid reason for rejecting the scientific evidence and expert consensus in favor of misinformation and political propaganda.  Trust me, I've tried to understand it for years.  I've tried to get the deniers to explain their reasoning.  It's nothing more than denial in action.

Answer 9

Show hosts and non-scientist bloggers are the best place to get scientific opinion!

(sarcasm)

Vicinic certainly doesn't sound like a scientist. I wonder what his stance is on the opinion of the national academies.

Answer 10

i have seen this work in real life.

everyone has a tendency to notice stuff that reinforces their world view. scientists devise double blind experiments to try to eliminate this.

when a person's world view gets increasingly divorced from what is actually happening, the person has to filter through massive amounts of data, selecting only those snippets that tally with their beliefs. if this means discarding all the real scientist's evidence and most of the mainstream media's offerings, then so be it.

edit; slaps, i'm afraid 'the sky being blue' is indeed physicists'  field. its called rayleigh scattering, i did that in school! here's a simple explanation;

http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/sky_blu...

Answer 11

Why do alarmists not admit their political leanings.  Yeah, I know you and every other alarmist consider themselves a middle of the roader and moderate.  The truth is, there is very little scientific evidence that there is or will be harmful or significant warming due to human emissions of CO2.  The question you should ask yourself is, why do you insist on putting that ridiculous conclusion in the mouths of scientists who said nothing of the kind.  The trick when you are performing surveys is to ask do you think humans are responsible for any warming.  If you polled leading climate scientists, "Do you think humans are responsible for harmful warming," I am quite confident the answer would be a resounding "no" from most of them.  Even those that said yes would have to admit potential benefits outweighed any harmful effects if they were honest or had any common sense.  Refusal to look at potential benefits proves bias IMO whether it be poltical or religious or whatever.

Answer 12

Hansen is a scientist who will stand in front of a national audience and say with a straight face, that within the decade we will see a tipping point that by the middle of this century  will see sea levels rise by at LEAST a meter! thats 3.28 feet. That's what your text books are preaching, do you honestly believe that sea levels will rise 1 feet in 15 years? because that's about what it's going to take for your prophecy to come true.

If you do, you are delusional, the exact same cycle was occuring in the 1930's the same shrinking glaciers, the sudden rise in temperatures, big storms, shrinking polar ice and droughts and then it started cooling, just like it is now. But you expect everyone to believe this time, it's different, even though we can't prove it, we are right this time.

Yeah, ok, riiiiiight :o

.

.

Answer 13

Many of them don't know enough about science to realize that there is a difference. They think that if there is a single credentialed person out there who disagrees with the mainstream, then that suddenly validates the position they *want* to believe. Then they inundate themselves with all the biased information they can (typically from pundits who spin and distort the facts intentionally, and of course... have no scientific credentials whatsoever).

Answer 14

Because they think scientists are getting carried away with everything. For Example, I was watching Discovery Channel one day and I say them doing tons of things to stop Global Warming, which to me makes it feel like there's gonna be Global Cooling. They are thinking about making lots of clouds, bombing plant-accelerating bombs(Which I think that they are just shattering glass because they're dropped from a plane). They are also sending 16 trillion mirrors into space and wiping out Plankton. Some are also changing power resources. So, Even I think this because they're getting carried away.

Answer 15

To the extent a textbook presents man-made global warming as ipso facto, that reflects on the textbook.    The textbooks used to refer to warmer climate during the MWP.   Now they don't.   That also reflects on the textbook.

It would appear that the problem is solving itself however.   Summer 2008 basically never happened.   The people who insisted that a few days of July weather in May meant global warming and predicted more similar weather can insist now that September weather in July and August also means global warming and that it's really "climate change" but nobody's buying it.

Answer 16

God created the earth.  He owns it, and he is well able to manage it without the help of mankind.  Atheists are not aware of God, so naturally, being good credible citizens they feel the need to take responsibility for saving the planet.  That is okay, but time will show that God is in charge, and the planet will fill the full measure of it's purpose right on schedule, with or without our help.

Answer 17

You have to understand that most scientists believe that man is not responsible for global warming it's just that if they say we're not to blame, they can't get any funding. I recommend reading this website:

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/...

Part of it was written by a climatologist who specializes in sea levels so you can't say this was written by an idiot. I do rather like the irony in you question when you say we don't listen to scientists when believers base their theory on the preaching of political extremists (i.e. Greenpeace), Al Gore and other politicians. A better question would be 'Why do believers think they know more than scientists?'

Answer 18

I guessing it's the horrible predictions these scientists have been making. Google "Greenhouse Warming Scorecard" and you might find the reason for the cynicism.

Answer 19

This is a ridiculous question. There is a lot of scientists that dispute the theory of AGW or at least don't believe the alarmist's claims that the world is going to end because of this.

The link I provided will most likely be attacked as somehow discredited, but it is simply citing, or giving you a link to information, not creating it.

So, you tell me. Is there really absolutely no scientists, 0,  that question the predictions of doom?

Also, you go after sites with the "cute" names, but the fact is they are simply citing the information and never claim to be the ones that conducted the research.  

Answer 20

We live in an age where the media is bent for economic benifit. We react to what we want to believe and there is always somone with a degree who will support a hypothosis for a price.

Answer 21

Really ... Well here are just a few prominent Scientists from around the globe who are not convinced of mans' role in 'Global Warming'.

MIT atmospheric scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen; UN IPCC scientist Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand; French climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux of the University Jean Moulin; World authority on sea level Dr. Nils-Axel Morner of Stockholm University; Physicist Dr. Freeman Dyson of Princeton University; Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Poland; Paleoclimatologist Dr. Robert M. Carter of Australia; Former UN IPCC reviewer Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum in Norway; and Dr. Edward J. Wegman, of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired Vice-Chancellor and President, University of Canberra, Australia; Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand; Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S.; Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta, Canada; Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands; William Evans, PhD, Editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame, U.S.; R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa; Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr.......

I listen to them , not you .

Ken , I am well aware of Lindzens' thoughts on man made global warming . I can confidently say that he is NOT convinced that man is responsible for MOST of the warming over the last 100 years , and neither am I .

Answer 22

So, should we cite wiki or tamino?  Will that make you feel better?  There are thousands of scientists that dispute AGW, just because you don't recognize it doesn't mean it's not happening.  I have cited close to a thousand "peer-reviewed" (I know you alarmists like that word) publications that disputes AGW.  I've even cited publications from scientists at the NOAA and NAS that disputes the AGW theory.  The only sites I see listed by the alarmists are NASA, NAS, NOAA, wiki, and tamino.  All of them sites have been debunked based on agendas or credibility.

Fact is this, the days of the global warming scare are almost over.  Thank God too, America can't let you whiners ruin this country.

Answer 23

Well since there are several thousand Scientists who disagree with the AGW THEORY why should we choose to just believe those who are profiting from siding with it ?

Answer 24

Text books repeat what politicians want you to hear.

I dont have a problem with scientists, I simply dont trust politicians.

There is another issue, which is that scientists are morons outside their field.  If 15,000 physicists say the sky is blue, I am going outside to check.  That isn't their field.

The IPCC met in 2007 (their fourth report), and decided that humans are likely to be responsible for 1.1-1.4 degrees of warming this next century, not a big deal.

The UN met, and doubled those numbers, to fit their political rhetoric, plus repainted the scale of the "problem" if the earth does warm that much.  The scientists might be right and might be wrong, but the politicians are lying sleaze bags who are just looking to line their pockets and increase their power over people.

Answer 25

vicinic - Anyone can claim to be a scientist on yahoo answers.

Here's the first 9 (out of around 50) climate scientists that agree AGW is real who's homepages I have bookmarks too:

Andrew Weaver http://climate.uvic.ca/people/weaver/

Stephen Schwartz http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/schwartz.ht...

Kevin Trenberth http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.htm...

S.C. Sherwood http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~sherwood/

Kerry Emanuel http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/home.html

Gregory Johnson http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/gjohnson...

Richard Rood http://aoss.engin.umich.edu/people/rbroo...

Dana Royer http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/index.htm

David Archer http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/

Sorry, but I don't have any celebrities to list.  I'd expect a little more research from a real scientist before making such unsupported and false statements.

Here's a more extensive recent list you might want to peruse before making that mistake again:

http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/news/2007/Ba...

As for the question, the sad thing is that some people can filter out any and all information that doesn't fit into their own world-view.  So ignoring 100's of scientists is no problem for the AGW doubters. One only has to look at the young-earth creationists (who discount much of biology and geology to hold onto their belief in a planet only 10,000 years old) to see a similar example.

Edit:

aceking - The very first person on your list (Richard Lindzen) was on a panel with the National Academy of Sciences that said:

"Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability."

Lindzen is on the low end of the spectrum (among climate scientists) for how much human caused warming will occur, he's definitely not in the AGW is false/hoax camp.