Why the distrust of science?

Question

As I scan the answers (opinions) to different questions, I can't help but notice the distrust of science. Some outright dismiss the findings of, historically, some of the most trusted organizations in the world. The National Academies, NASA and the Royal Society (UK) are among those.

Now, to justify the lack of trust in organizations respected for their candor and commitment to science, conspiracy theories are manufactured to link them to a tax making scheme for governments, or global takeover by the UN. Can’t forget the one where the organizational leadership is supporting AGW theory without the consent of its members. No evidence is ever offered.

Answer 1

quite simply, if Gore is involved in it, then its' crooked.

Answer 2

Americans have been anti-intellectual for a long time. This is largely caused by the fanatical faith of the fundies, who refuse to recognize that people are animals, that evolution is a solid theory, that sociologists and other people with brains might do a good job of running the society instead of politicians, and so on. These people also suspect intellectuals, who are famous for questioning authority, as disruptive liberals who lean towards communism. We are probably the only major developed country that has this attitude. We admire and value football players far more than we do scientists who come up with vaccines against deadly diseases. This is warped and is proof that the public mind is shallow.

Answer 3

I believe there are several factors that come in to play here. A lot of people do not want to look at science because, as you suggest, it is frightening.

Some people have looked at the science but can not allow themselves to believe it, so they find any other 'less frightening' reasons to explain it all away.

Some people live in the here and now only. It is too uncomfortable to change unless forced to.

Some people believe that God will save them.

Sadly some people do not understand science at all.

Answer 4

Distrust of science is an affliction of AGW proponents, not skeptics. There is ample evidence, and scientists which have pointed it out, that AGW models simply are not capable of reproducing historical temperature/CO2 data. Oh, they can match a few years worth, but they fail miserably when tested over the half-million years of data available. Nature does not lie. If your model is not capable of reproducing the data, then your model is wrong. Period, end of story. That's science.

Why do the AGW proponents distrust science?

-------

Wow, Bob, your intellectual dishonesty has hit a new low. You are willing to accept a physical model that cannot reproduce historical data that, by being repeatable over multiple cycles, reveals a fundamental relationship between temperature and atmospheric constituency. You are willing to admit that the existing models are incapable of reproducing that fundamental relationship and yet you put your full faith in them and want them to govern all fiscal and social behavior. You crack me up, Bob.

Answer 5

I remember hearing that Hitler didn't believe the bomb because it was Jewish science.  For me science is science but AWG is more about leftist wishful thinking than actual science. I am quite confident that you will deny your bias.  I am also quite confident that you are willing to believe anything Hansen says as long as he agrees with you.  NASA is a bureaucracy.  Bureaucracies and scientific organizations crave money.  Money drives the results that money is looking for.  I realize I have to oversimplify it a bit to fit but what I said is factual.  You can trust money driven results.  I find them lacking.

Answer 6

I have to agree with Dr. T. on this one, most AGW proponents completely dismiss the glaring problem with the AGW theory. And that is that the mid-troposphere temperature gradients do not support the AGW theory over the last thirty years. In fact globally averaged mid troposphere temperatures have been falling for 5 years. The AGW theory demands that the mid troposphere warm at a faster rate than the surface, cooling for five years clearly indicates that natural climate variability is a subject that is not understood among climate scientists.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/res...

I am sorry that the scientific analysis of the mid troposphere does not support the AGW theory, but you should trust it, it's the science that counts.

.

.

Answer 7

You summed it up quite nicely.

People cannot be expert in all subjects.  In particular, the sciences require years of dedicated study for one to become an expert in any given field.  So when it comes to a complex topic like global warming and climate change, we must defer to the experts.  Personally I've spent a lot of time studying the science behind global warming, more than 99+% of the population I'm sure, and I certainly still defer to the experts.

But when the experts arrive at a conclusion which is inconvenient to the public (and this is why Gore's film was titled 'An Inconvenient Truth'), people resist it.  They find reasons to question the science that they don't understand, or simply ignore/deny the science by coming up with wild conspiracy theories.

Eventually over time more and more people realize that their conspiracy theories and denial don't hold up against scientific evidence, and the deniers become a tiny minority.  We're already seeing this happen.  Even in the politically partisan USA where global warming has been turned into a political issue rather than a scientific one, 70-80% of the population accepts the scientific consensus.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/a...

In short, people distrust science and scientists when it becomes convenient for them to do so.

*edit* by the way, most of the warming attributed to the Sun during the 20th century came in the first half of the century:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Clima...

The highest percentage of the warming over the past 30 years any study has attributed to the Sun is 25-35%, and it made some highly questionable assumptions.  Most studies put it at 0-10%.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

In response to Tomcat - to dismiss an entire theory because one aspect may not be correct when you don't have a more accurate alternative theory is absurd.  Besides which, increased warming in the tropical troposphere is not unique to the anthropogenic global warming theory.  And on top of that, the satellite measurements on which your argument is based have a very high degree of uncertainty based on various biases such as orbital decay.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

Answer 8

Mostly it's people letting their political/religious beliefs dominate science.

And then using carefully selected references to sow confusion and doubt among people with little knowledge.  Jello's post is a good example.  First he quotes a NASA site that's several years old, then he cites NASA data that stops in 1985(!!).  The two lines on that graph separate sharply after that, destroying his argument, but he's confused people, so it's useful to him.

You often see here the completely ridiculous statement that just as many scientists think global warming is not caused by us as do.  Same idea.  The fact that it's flat wrong and there's no support for it doesn't matter.

It's like most things on the Internet.  Every viewpoint is represented, including ignorant and deliberately misleading ones.  It requires some work, knowledge and judgment to separate the good information from the c**p.  In that spirit, here's good information about global warming:

http://profend.com/global-warming/

http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sci...

http://www.realclimate.org

"climate science from climate scientists"

Dr. T - The models don't need to reproduce millions of years.  The issue is how much global warming is man made, caused by the dramatic increase in fossil fuel consumption in the last 50 years.  The models are plenty good enough to show that man is the cause of most of it.  Proof.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Ima...

From:  Meehl, G.A., et al, (2004). "Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate". Journal of Climate 17: 3721-3727

Which is WHY most all scientists agree about this.

Answer 9

Science! be blessed... is formed by all too fallible humanbeings [even Einstein and Oppenheimer recognized that science isn't the ultimate answer] what is tres amusing... the "greenies" have somehow morphed from anti-establishment [Silent Running crowd] into oneworld government wannabe's... IPCC has the answer! Science be praised! [this from the crowd that doesn't trust its own government...lol]

Answer 10

Yes - Scientist from NASA and Russia have made the link between the Sun and global warming. NASA attributes at least half of all warming to the Sun, the other half they blame on natural occurrences, and the least amount on man.

"Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity," Abdusamatov told RIA Novosti in an interview.

"It is no secret that when they go up, temperatures in the world's oceans trigger the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070115/590789...

Of the many trends that appear to cause fluctuations in the Sun’s energy, those that last decades to centuries are the most likely to have a measurable impact on the Earth’s climate in the foreseeable future. Many researchers believe the steady rise in sunspots and faculae since the late seventeenth century may be responsible for as much as half of the 0.6 degrees of global warming over the last 110 years (IPCC, 2001)

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library...

Then there is this chart from NASA that plots the number of Sunspots to the Earths climate.

http://www.research.noaa.gov/spotlite/ar...

So why the distrust of scientist who know that the Sun, not man is causing global warming?  I would like to know.  These are NASA scientist.  These scientist are the gold standard.

Yet there will always be those with an agenda that will claim they know more than NASA scientists.

[Edit] Thanks for proving my point.  Here are NASA scientist who have done the work and came to the conclusion that the Sun, not man is the cause of global warming.  These findings are supported independantly by scientist in Russia.

Yet, their findings go against the theory that man is the cause, so these findings are attacked, dismissed, and trashed because they go against the dogma.  Why are people afraid of the findings of these scientist?  

Why can we just say that there are many scientist who disagree about the cause of global warming, and we need more time and research before we can come to an absolute conclusion?

Nothing I posted is embelished.  If you read further from NASA's Earth Observitory web site, you will find more information linking the warming of the Sun to the warming of Earth.

[Edit] - NASA scientist state that 50% of global warming is due to the Sun.  How many times to you hear on these boards that the Sun doesn't contribute to global warming?  Why do people ignore the science?

I also see that you choose to ignore the scientist from Russia who made the findings that man isn't causing global warming.  That the Sun is responsible for all warming.

Why do you choose to ignore this data?  Do you think you have greater qualifications that these scientist?  Why are people afraid of scientist who have studied the Sun and found it to be hotter now than it was 100 years ago?

Answer 11

Evolution has created in our species a trust of our own family/tribe and a fear/distrust of outsiders/foreigners. This makes it more likely that a person who daily listens to Rush Limbaugh (thus, a member of his "tribe") will trust what he says more than a report coming from unknown scientist working at NOAA.  Likewise, often a Pastor in a church is more trusted (even on subjects he/she isn't knowledgeable about) than a real expert from outside the church.

An additional factor is the natural desire of many for simplicity and certitude.  Science is full of complex shades of gray and subtleties, which confuses non-scientists, and that makes people react against them.  They often don't understand that part of what makes science self-correcting (and thus trustworthy) is the fact that many competing theories and ideas are put forth for consideration (that confuses the non-scientist) and only those that can sustain the scrutiny of fellow scientists survive.

Answer 12

Conservatism's aversion and fear of science is not just limited to global warming and climate change, at least in the US. Conservatives also disbelieve in evolution, continental drift, fossels, and radiocarbon dating. They hate intellectuals and fear education. Some even go so far as to doubt the lunar landings.

Of course, most of them now buy that gravity exists and that the earth orbits around the sun. They no longer burn people at the stake for believing those things.

A spokesman for the Royal Society, Britain's leading scientific academy, said: "At present there is a small minority which is seeking to deliberately confuse the public on the causes of climate change.

"They are often misrepresenting the science, when the reality is that the evidence is getting stronger every day.

"We have reached a point where a failure to take action to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions would be irresponsible and dangerous."

To the people who continual to falsely claim that an increase in solar radiation is to blame. The solar radiation theory has been disproven. It turns out that solar radiation is decreasing. Those who claim otherwise are either liars or morons, or both. At least according the the experts. See the link below.

Answer 13

some people are just paranoid and don't trust much. other's may suspect failings within these organizations. errors, or misjudgements. and others may look at the long history of flip flopping within the scientific community. look at the history of the atom, and other things. the bottom line is scientists are suggesting a possibility, a prediction that has a liklihood of occuring. when one takes these claims out of context they can seem outlandish. but its the scientific method, the same thing that put together this computer i'm using right now, or the seat i'm sitting on. to discount science's achievements is perhaps a bit outlandish itself, but complete belief in a suggested eventuality may be unfounded. if one looks at a claim as it is, if one understands the context of claims, then perhaps seeing eye to eye there can be some respect and understanding of the scientific community and its findings.

Answer 14

Why the level of distrust in sciecne?  It is not the level of distrust in science so much as how the information is presented.  Lets pick on this website just a little bit.

http://profend.com/global-warming/

On the cover page it says "Welcome to a global warming website with a difference, one where you can see the facts for yourself instead of being told what to think and do." it gives you the feeling it will be objective right? As you start to read it though, it slowly starts to show that it is defanatley biased, then it shows us pictures like on this page.

http://profend.com/global-warming/pages/...

Which show a ship in a dried lake bed and includes a quote "A further consequence is the loss of over 1,000 lakes but the creation of many new ones." I am familiar with this picture it is from the Aral Sea according to the square when you point your mouse on it. So I look up Aral Sea, because I remember the problem with that was not a global warming issue. It is an inland sea that shrank because it's tributaries were dammed.

http://www.american.edu/ted/aral.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea

So as it is an ecological dissaster, it is not a factor of global warming.  That is the type of thing that causes distrust.  Well back to the original web page, it gets more and more pro-AGW and less objective as you go through the pages and lists all the environmental negatives, most quite exagerated to sound like it is armmageddon than a subtle slow change. It also lists the environmental disasters we will have to face with out showing that there will probably be as much positive change.

Answer 15

Thank you for a very well phrased, thoughtful and congenial question.

I have not much to add as I agree completely with your analysis and that of the other thoughtful contributors.  

I believe that psycho-social analysis has shown that the majority of people, between 50-90 percent, are followers.  All the other personality types fall into the other 10-50 percent.  From this you can draw your own conclusions.  

The question remaining for me is about the profile of those who deny environmental problems.

Is it earnest but woefully uneducated sheep who have not the capacity of critical thought?

Is it earnest but uninformed average people overwhelmed by the enormity of the problem?

Is it shallow, willfully ignorant people fighting to maintain their profligate ways?

Is it a deliberate campaign to confuse and mislead by dark forces in the world?

We need a charismatic secular leader who can sway the vast middle of the populace with reason and candor.  Help people to see that it is in all our best interest to solve these problems, whatever rational is used to persuade.

If the idea of a moral imperative to stop destroying God's creation isn't enough, I don't know what will be.  

???