Why would anyone believe a few undistinguished "skeptics" instead of the National Academy of Sciences?

Question

The National Academy of Sciences consists of 1800 of the nation's top scientists. They are elected by their peers. Few of them receive funding for global warming.

The institution is over a hundred years old, and is the closest thing we've got to a Supreme Court of science.

Their official position is that global warming is real, and mostly caused by us. Why would anyone believe a few skeptics, instead of their position, which is well documented, and based on the work of thousands of independent scientists?

Here is their official position (the brochure requires Acrobat Reader, free download at

http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html)

http://dels.nas.edu/globalchange/

http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf

Answer 1

There is no belief system behind their alleged "skepticism".  It is just political "attack dogging" and/or oppositional/defiant personalities.

The only mention of eugenics on the NSF web page is in a report on nanotechnology where it is listed along with stem cell research, cloning, and a lot of other things as "ethical concerns"  Do you disagree with them Dr. J?

Answer 2

Why, because those few skeptics are telling them, in effect, that they need not change their lifestyle. And that's what they want to hear.

Answer 3

Those who doubt follow the Forrest Gump mentality of "Stupid is as Stupid does".

No more needs to be said.

Answer 4

Because believing the few skeptics is the only way to maintain their denial about AGW.

Answer 5

Bob:  I agree that global warming is an issue as is pollution and the rapid use of the world's resources.  I tend to be a skeptic of skeptics and these organizations are not necessarily working in our best interest. I think regardless of whatever evidence (either pro or con) we should try to do our best to consume less and pollute less.  Also, I believe that there should be population control (by what means, I do not know.  Nothing violent... encourage ppl to have only one or no children and pay them for this agreement).  It is quite possible that the earth's heating and cooling cycles are not in correlation with our actions.  However, we all can argue that human activity has caused desertification and pollution.  We need to win the environmental argument based on what we can prove, and not focus so strongly on this "global warming" topic.  There has to be some sort of behavioral shift where ppl want to recycle, live more simply, and find alternative energy solutions because it's the right thing to do.  When anyone figures out how to accomplish this, please let me know.  I cannot even influence the culture in my company to stop using Styrofoam in the cafeteria.  Sorry!  Another topic!

Answer 6

The scientists and the skeptics have the same education and the important thing to remember is that academia considers temperature in calculators. Temperature is critical in science except we can't see it, we calculate it with the greatest of accuracy. Everyone thinks that everyone else is doing their job so the argument on global warming exists.

Meteorologists assume that development is absorbing heat and not generating heat because buildings are believed to be code compliant. Did you know the entire building and development industry is signed off as compliant but never verified?

We did work over several seasons showing the temperatures associated with buildings and development. We documented generated heat close to boiling temperature because of solar radiation and the same UV that burns us. Go to http://www.thermoguy.com/globalwarming-h... to see examples.

We are generating heat on the surface of the planet close to boiling temperature while science argues about C02 trapping heat. We are responding to the heat symptoms with ozone depleting refrigerants, massive GHG emissions including mercury, massive electrical waste while we blame economy. California is being knocked off the electrical grid treating symptoms.

Fo the skeptics, go to http://www.thermoguy.com/globalwarming-h... to see what WE are causing. We are supposed to blend with nature so we don't impact our lives negatively. Look around and we can hardly see development nestled in amongst trees.

Al Gore is right about the urgency, he doesn't have a background designing and creating emissions, I do. Go to http://www.thermoguy.com and scroll down to the picture of the fetus. Click on the link to the study on babies having mercury, fire retardents, banned pesticides, incinerated garbage, Teflon, etc before they take their first breath.

The toxicity ratio in newborns is 100% and they have reproductive problems because of the toxins. The babies don't have the immune system to protect themselves. 100% of it is manmade and unnatural.

Answer 7

Because it's more convenient to believe the skeptics.  Believing the scientists would be too expensive and difficult.  Furthermore, the oil companies have more PR budget than the environmentalists, so they control people's minds a lot better.

Answer 8

Why???  Well, because the "distinguished club" have backed themselves into the wrong corner by blindly accepting "Man-did-it" as a sound theory.  They assumed .....because of 'assurances' by 'credentialed' bureaucrats..... that the base-data used to develop the whole 'man-did-it' theory.....was accurate, when....IN FACT.... the data is seriously FLAWED.

The ever-shrinking believer group needs to step back and DEMAND that the data issue be clearly and positively cleared up and DEMAND that no more smoke and mirrors be used by embarrassed fellow 'experts' to legitimize the bad data!!

Good grief...... the bad data situation wasn't even acknowledged until a group of volunteers surveyed the data collection equipment and pointed it out to the government.  That's when the bureaucratic 'scramble & spin' began.

Answer 9

There are a lot more that just "a few undistinguished skeptics" that don't suscribe to the global warming religion.

Answer 10

Go with the flow!

Answer 11

Isn't this the same group that still studies Eugenics?  

The NAS is the group that scientifically proved that black people were not as smart as whites and got laws passed banning mixed marriages and forced sterilizations.

Since well intentioned, smart people are fallible, shouldn't we just wait for objective science than believe the opinions of a few people?  

I think it's worth the wait.

[Bob] There is a mountain of 'evidence' that shows that minorities aren't as smart as white people.  I'm a skeptic there as well.

There is a difference between objective and subjective science.  I'll stick to objective science, you can rely on the opinions of Pat Roberson, Newt Gingrich, and the CEO of Wal-Mart for your "scientific" sources.

Answer 12

1. Not having to want to be responsible which means being inconvenienced enough to have to change ones lifestyle.

2. Work directly or indirectly for the fossil fuel companies or gain financial benefit from such companies.

3. Believe the have to hold to certain associative ideologies (i.e. can't be g*y and be pro-life, can't be republican and be an environmentalist). There are exceptions but people often fall into these associative camps and others without giving each issue full consideration.

4. People with a contrary personality. Some people just like to stir up the crapola. It makes them feel alive to have a good argument, maybe even with some outright insults thrown in there that makes them feel superior to others.

5. Natural skeptics: Some people will not believe anything unless there is an unsurmountable amount of evidence to support otherwise. I believe this evidence level has already been reached but because certain people feel compelled to portray this issue still in the arena of doubt some skeptics are still taking an honest but nevertheless unnecessary third forth and fifth look. What we have to remember is even in todays world there is still the World is Flat Society.

Answer 13

errr jello, nice try at a smear, but wasnt that back in the 1920's?

when that was mainstream thinking.....

it's guilt, or rather guilt-avoidance. and insecurity. makes some people awful aggressive.

i used to get the same attitude as a traveler, anything that shows theirs is not the only lifestyle calls their life choices into question, and therefore must be suppressed.

Answer 14

Most people aren't going to bother (or aren't capable) of learning the science.  Since both sides have experts they will just pick the side they like.  Very few will even bother to read the credentials of "skeptics" and compare them to the credentials of the "pro-AGW" people.  If you want to drive a Range Rover with only one passenger around the suburbs without feeling guilty, it helps to be a skeptic.  If you want to feel better than the person in a Range Rover without really doing anything that takes effort, it helps to believe man-made climate climate change is occuring.

Answer 15

There are always those people who will believe what they want to believe not matter what evidence you present.  For some people being wrong doesn't seem to matter.

Answer 16

Anything Al Gore says should be taken with not a grain, but

a box of salt.

I really don't think man is smart enough to know the workings of the universe yet.

Answer 17

In The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary, Christy is quoted as saying, "I've often heard it said that there's a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue and that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well I am one scientist, and there are many that simply think that is not true."[6]

Bob,  Christy does believe in GLobal Warming and that we do have some affect, however he is skeptical on the results and that is the heart of the matter.  I do not deny global warming or that we have some affect on the climate. However I do not agree that the results will be as bad as being projected, and many scientist agree. I only quoted one,  the more I point out does not validate anything.  

For any  group to impose  thier will on others based upon what might happen is just wrong.

[edit] Awards

1991: NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (with Roy Spencer)[1]

1996: AMS Special Award "for developing a global, precise record of earth's temperature from operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate.\

Is this scientist undistinguished?  You seem to think majority rule applies to science it in fact does not.   The consensus at the time of Einstein was he was wrong, so therefore his theory was wrong?   If history proves anything it proves the majority is not always correct and that we do not learn from our mistakes.  

There is one thing I have observed about AGW issue, both side have demonstrated the ability to insult each other.

Answer 18

The majority of intellectuals also used to think that the sun revolved around the earth until a few skeptics proved them wrong.

Answer 19

If all you watch is Fox News, you will be fed an awful lot of misinformation and outright lies.  However, some people would rather listen to some idiot pundit smirking and shouting than to take a sober look at scientific discoveries based on accumulated facts.

I'm not altogether convinced of everything I hear about global warming, but you don't have to tell me twice that pollution is harmful and that using fewer fossil fuels is a smart idea.  Some people are so caught up in the FOX conservative conspiracy, though, that they will even refute common sense issues (for example, the fact that breathing car exhaust is bad for your health).  Unbelievably arrogant; like teenagers who think they know everything because their friends tell them so.

Answer 20

Jello mentioned Eugenics.  Eugenics was popular among the same sort of intellectuals that now swallow the GW KoolAid.  It ultimately led to the Concentration Camps.  Leftists may not like it but those are the facts.  Following the crowd is not science.  It is in fact anti-science.  Consensus is for politics but that is why alarmists constantly bang the consensus drum beat.  Facts are not on their side.  One thing they consistently fail to mention is many of those scientists also think that effects of global warming is being absurdly exaggerated by people pushing an agenda.  Those that pretend warming is necessarily bad are ignorant of the history of life on earth.  If truth were on the alarmists side, they wouldn't exaggerate so much.

Answer 21

I think people are in denial because if global warming is real then they're a part of the problem.  People don't want to have to change their living habits to  live "greener."

I've lived in places where all you have to do to recycle is put your stuff in a bin and they come and pick it up.  You don't even have to take the bin to the curb and people still couldn't be bothered to do it.