Why do people with no formal education..?

Question

have such a strong opinion on Global warming, when Environmental scientists know alot more variables contributing to global weather and the majority of credible scientists feel its natural.

shouldn't we be researching or listening to the professionals in this subject rather than listening to politicians and lobbyists who speculate from there limited knowledge in this field?

Answer 1

oh really sweet killer

Answer 2

Keep yourelf on the smart side. Listen to the people that are in the know about global warm. All the others that are not so bright have the biggest mouths, but they only work with opinions and they are the cheapest things known to man. If you've noticed, uneducated people are the ones that think they know everything and try to convince everyone else of their way of thinking. Right ? Right  That's called B.S.

Answer 3

For every scientist who agrees that global warming is being caused by man, there is one who disagrees with global warming theory espoused by the global warming alarmists.



So, why does anyone question anything, if the scientists are divided on that very question, that someone has in mind ?

Maybe the question in question should only be discussed by people who have a formal education in whatever question that was being asked, by people who should not be asking that type of question in the first place.

Answer 4

Why do people with no formal education have an opinion on anything.

Simple because those with no formal education that decide to have an opinion, force down the throat of us who decide to weigh up the facts and form an opinion  were too d**n smart and  don't need a formal education. Thats because, in their opinion anybody that has an opinion that is diferent from theirs must be an idiot. Therefore I am an idiot because I actually beleive the scientists that base their opinion on fact. So I guess  that must make the scientists idiots as well. So just who is the idiot ? those who think or those who think you should think like them.

Who really knows !!!!!!!

Answer 5

No many scientists believe is rubbish.  the quasi-scientists are the ones witht he loudest voices, and the least general knowledge.

"If you're "pro" man-made-global-warming theory, you're a liberal. If you're a "skeptic" you must be pro-Bush and pro-Big-oil."

But what if I am an Environmental Technician by trade, drive a prius hybrid, and think human created global warming is a myth and also hope oil skyrockets in price to push technology :D  am I some sort of anomaly thats going to cause the fabric of space to collapse? :p

Answer 6

im not answering im enforcing the question, hey i second that! :)

i remember the myth of the ozone layer in late 90s, when all products were marketed as "ozone-friendly" so they do not increase the damage already done to the ozone layer, turned out years later (and i doubt scientist ever had a different opinion, its just the media playing us) that the ozone layer had a hole in it since the dawn of history (or relatively, long long time ago) i wouldnt be surprised if the reality of global warming turned out to be something completely predictable and out of our hands

Answer 7

Even though people with no/less education in the field say it, like myself, although I've read a lot about it in books,  and many people with the right education in the field might not stress the point as much, it doesn't make it a lie. It is a universal truth and common people wouldnt know about it if it handnt been for the experts . They are the ones who started spreading the mesage through articles in the newspaper, shows on the television, books and other indirect sources. And regular people like us help spread the message and tell people to the extent we know on the subject and try to help reduce the damage.

Answer 8

formal education or not, professional or not, opinons are for everyone to have. Just like it's your opinion that "people with no formal education have such a strong opinion on Global warming".

we just do whats "right". Dun litter, dun pollute, dun waste, reduce, reuse, recycle, and the world would just be a so much better place to live in. This doesn't need us to be "listening to the professionals in this subject ".

Natural or not, we try to be nicer to Earth, and whatever comes, we all just have to take it.

Answer 9

Thank you. Can that be my answer?

Answer 10

Things get to muddied by political and financial considerations.  I tend to look at experts as

ex - has been

spurt - a drip under pressure.

The "scientists" keep telling us one thing and then another every couple of years.  They almost never admit they were wrong.  I don't put much stock in what they have to say.

Answer 11

Because even though a person without a formal education hasn't been awarded a degree or certificate for completing x-amount of classes or field-work, doesn't mean that person can't be an intelligent individual who can understand a discipline other than that which they've been formally trained.  I associate with plenty of intelligent people who do not have a degree in climatology, oceanography, meteorology etc . . ., but what's to say those very people don't have the capacity to understand something new?  Quite often I find that even people who haven't been formally trained in a field are smarter than those that have.  While I'm certainly not saying we should discount anyone who has accredation in any given discipline, because it can make a difference, but let's not discount those that can enlighten themselves by doing their own research.  In terms of science, all studies, papers, theories, opinions, research, hypotheses etc. are all meant to be open to criticism to achieve an optimal level of accuracy, consistency and trigger debate.  Meaning that I can go out on my own time, find research, studies, and opinions that have been recorded by credible, reputable individuals or groups and form my own opinion because I can get the information from various sources.  Studies are pubished so they can be critiqued by others and will hopefully enlighten.  They're not meant to just remain exclusively in the sphere of academia or the scientific community so they are able to go out and tell us their conclusions without something to back it up.  Why would I take the word of someone just because they have a little piece of paper showing they're accredited?  I want more than that.  That would be like me saying you shouldn't eat peanutbutter because you'll get cancer.  You'd probably think that's a bit preposterous without something to back it up so you'd want to see my where I'm drawing my conclusions from.  Or should I be discounted because my view goes against popular opinion? Thirty years ago, I'd be labeled a communist sympathizer because I don't believe Senator Joe McCarthy was entirely wrong in the 1950's in claiming many of the people in the federal government were communists.  So should I have been discounted because most of the "experts" who studied him and his agenda agreed he was self-serving?  Enter the Venona Papers, hard evidence that he could have been accurate and those communists he called out were actually there.  That's the main reason there's so much backlash from the pro-global warming crowd, because there are those who are not automatically buying into the hype.  Now, I'm not saying there aren't people out there who are ignorant of a subject such as this (and countless others) that are literally, unable to understand what they're talking about, because there are plenty of them on both sides of the fence.  Point being, a person doesn't need a formal training in any given area to be knowledgeable and well-informed.  They just need to show that they can piece together all available information to form a well-rounded, well-researched opinion.

Answer 12

I have been following the global warming phenomenon for some time and have come to an an interesting explanation.

Global warming has become a religion.  A religion in the sense that the doctrine that man-made damage to the environment will cause doom is not based on "knowledge"... but "belief".  This ideology has its Bible, the Gore movie (which is replete with errors and exaggerations), its fear of h**l, world wide doom, and its ministers, politicians who desire a larger and more controlling federal government.

I no longer debate the subject with GW adherents since they hold their belief with no desire to hear a reasonable argument.  The most typical response I would get was, "If you're wrong and the government does nothing we will all be doomed!" Which is similar to what one gets when he discusses religion; "If you're wrong your soul will go to h**l!"...the fear factor.

I am an agnostic when it comes to GW and God, but there is vastly more evidence that God exists than there is that GW is a man-made doom.

Answer 13

Be careful, you are being rational.  Critical thinking threatens most people.

Answer 14

yes i agree keep thepoliticans out of it they are really stupid people. they just hava big line of bs.

Answer 15

On what do you base your conclusion that "the majority of credible scientists feel its natural"?  That's simply incorrect.

Climate scientists are more concerned about global warming than most people.  Please see the section entitled 'Consensus' at the link below for proof.

Answer 16

We definitely should. But people are going to jump on the bandwagon and listen to someone elses opinions.

"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."

Answer 17

Global warming is the politisation of science, and unfortunately it has effects on both politics AND science.

Usually science is free from any influence, except evidence and experiment. Now, a scientific position ammounts to a political position.

If you're "pro" man-made-global-warming theory, you're a liberal. If you're a "skeptic" you must be pro-Bush and pro-Big-oil.

This, I think, distorts the real facts behind the matter.

Answer 18

Thanks for the rant but it is not a majority.  

I do have an extensive formal education and excellent training in stats and I am no slouch at research, and I know that it is coming and it will be a lot worse than anticipated unless some pretty drastic measures are implemented very very soon.  

The natural process we are triggering is far more fearsome than what we have done.  In the past 180 years we have doubled the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.  OK want to multiply the current level by 40?  Let the permafrost in the arctic and subarctic regions melt.  Huge amounts of trapped greenhouse gases are in those deep freezes.

And the drastic action would now be no less than something like a mild nuclear winter.  Think the politicians will go for that?

Answer 19

While I understand what you are saying, it does not take a genius to see through much of the political smoke screen Green Gore and his camp have been spewing for the past few years.

If the environmental lobby was not so "doom and gloom" about every little aspect, then maybe more people would actually listen.

The other thing you have to consider is that while you may consider these people "professionals", I don't, because you have to look at where their funding comes from.  A majority of the funding for the these studies comes from heavy handed pro-global warming groups, so it is not hard to see why the findings may be a little skewed.

Answer 20

People with little/no formal education often like to hop onto things that other people make sound good.  They don't know how to do their own research and draw their own conclusions because they haven't been taught. . . so it's easy to fall into that trap.  Not all do by any means, but many do.

Actually, what I really dislike are those that say "___ number of Ph.D.'s say this" and just leave it at that.  (When did people with Ph.D.'s all start speaking in unison and coming to all the exact same conclusions even given the exact same information, by the way?)  No explanation or discussion. . . just a number.  Yes, and did a Ph.D. mean that you know everything all the time and are infallible in interpreting data?  I've known professors who don't tend to admit that they are just making a wild guess if it's about something outside of their little niche. . . and some whose opinions I've wondered about if it's within their own niche.  

Should I start going around in a couple of years trying to be one of those experts?  I hope to have a Ph.D. in a field that contains the word "environmental" before too much longer.  Who cares if that's not at all the area my research/dissertation are in -- nobody will notice.

I think that people need to look for themselves at the information that's available as much as possible if this is an area that truly interests them, rather than just going along with popular opinions.  Most people aren't going to understand it all, but at least you should be informed enough about the matter to judge good science from bad/biased science when you see people who do understand talking about it.