Why do people put so much trust in scientific opinion when it suits them?

Question

The global warming zealots cry out that scientists are telling us that global warming is caused by man's activities and we must change our ways.
However the same people will tell us all that the scientists are talking out of their bottoms when they tell us that things such as mobile phones are harmless.

Those who disagree with me talk of scientists who have nothing to gain by warning of global warming. They don't get it do they? They, the scientists, have a career based on the theory of global warming and it's causes.
Pay a scientist and he'll tell you what you want him to say.

Answer 1

webcop33, where is the evidence that human activity is speeding up natural warming processes? The recent IPCC report indicates warming of 0.6 degrees C over the last century. A study of past earth temperatures from ice core data show warming as much as 2.75 degrees C seven centuries BC and in the 14th century. There has been more rapid warming in the past without human influence.

Answer 2

I don't know if you can generalize by saying "same people". I, for one, believe that Global Warming is a real problem, given the data, but I also feel that data indicates cell phones are not a problem (this may change as more longitudinal data is available). Keep in mind that scientists have data that goes back hundreds and even thousands of years concerning global CO2 levels, but the data on cell phones covers a much shorter time span (largely because people have not been using cell phones for a long time).

I see what you are saying, though. People will use data in ways that suits them. There is a famous quip that there are 'lies, there are damn lies, and then there are statistics'. People will always use statistics to suit their preconceived biases.

In much the same way, Conservatives will point out the small number of studies that contradict Global Warming. Even more ridiculous are Creationists who use one or two rare events and make generalizations based on them. One example is the 1977 capture by Japanese fishermen of the skeleton of a decomposed basking shark. Although all reputable scientists regarded it as a modern-day animal- most likely a shark- young Earth Creationists jumped on this as evidence of a pleiosaur, a seagoing dinosaur, arguing it is proof that humans and dinosaurs coexist. Others of the same ilk will argue that canyons that are tens of thousands of years old are really only a few thousad years, in the same timespan as the Biblical Flood. Yet others will claim that Carbon 14 dating is so inaccurate that it is proof positive the Earth is younger than a few thousand years (a completely nonsensical conclusion, given the thousands of reputable papers based on numerous geological measurements besides C 14 dating).

Ridiculous to be sure. And not even science, really. But "data" is what you make of it.

(By the way, there is such a thing as good data and good science, and bad data and bad science. One should always be critical, no matter what the data shows. But that means being reasonable and having some common sense. Creationism stands against common sense- and science, which is the only way to objectively compare competing theories- from every single angle; so does a blind faith in tallk show lunatics with diploma mill credentials-aka Hannity et al).

Answer 3

YOU REALLY DON´T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT SCIENTISTS

People don´t put trust in them, most follow blindly because they do not all have the level to take the decisions and understand.

That´s why the panel sytudying global warming, the IPCC is made of scientists from all countries, people who have seral (hundrets) of already acknowledged publications and therefore would risk a lot to publish lies.

DO YOU THINK THOUSANDS OF SCIENTISTS FROM ALL PLANETS WHO ARE THE BEST AND HAVE EACH AROUND 100 RECOGNIZED PUBLICATIONS (OR MORE) WOULD ALL JUMP INTO SOMETHING THAT´S FAKE AND THREATEN THEIR WHOLE CAREER THEY WORKED 20-50 YEARS VERY HARD FOR ???
DO YOU THINK IT IS IN THEIR INTEREST TO RISK IT ALL ??? THINK ABOUT IT !!!

They don´t get more or less money. I work with some and I can tell you that they don´t even get 10% of what the consultants who banckrupt ENRON received !!! If you want to make money, theoretical science is simply not the right field !

A scientist has no political opinion to give, they research facts, make analysis and critical debate... and the debate is really over.

In the US, nevertheless, scientific facts can be political issues. Why don´t you open a debate about the color of the sky ???

Answer 4

I like how you try that trick. The exact same people that believe the scientists on global warming also disbelieve them on cell phone safety.

What nonsense.

What I would like to see is a real, serious sincere, logic based debate between those who support the climate change model and those who think that global warming is not a serious issue.

What I mainly see is the supporters like Gore quoting scientific studies and other scientists and then people such as yourself who don't argue from a scientific viewpoint and instead use strawman arguments, ad homimem attacks and hyperbole.

If you are sure of your position, why don't you argue it calmly and rationally?

Answer 5

Scientists are not saying man is the CAUSE of global warming, but rather we are speeding the natural cycle up, BY A LOT. Our actions are acting like a catalyst.

And for the cell phone part, before they were harmless, now they are not as much because of improved technology.

But people usually agree with something that "fills in the blank" in their mind, it's the basis of religion. However, with the rapid advancement in technology, religion is slowly losing it's grip on people because science not only "fills in the blanks", but has concrete proof.

Answer 6

I think that your bias is being showed through this question..

The overwhelming majority of scientists support the idea of global warming because they have an understanding of the chemical and physical properites of greenhouse gasses. They do not do it because "it suits them". However, many people who dispute global warming do so because they have something to loose (Oil companies, Bush Administration who hire scientists to cast doubt). Sure, it is an imperfect theory. There is natural variation with climate. But most scientists, political minds, etc. agree that it is better to err on the side of caution.

Answer 7

I agree completely but am not willing to label global warming alarmists as scientists. They are pseudoscientists. Science should be an objective review of the facts used to make theories not a subjective selection of convenient facts (while ignoring inconvenient ones) to support theories which are made before learning all the facts. It ends up being a science controlled by politics and emotion not facts and therefore pseudoscience. Interesting how the previous answer proves your point. He rants on about Hannity and creationists. He only proves that he is liberal. Global warming is the religion of the left and is pure politics with a sprinkling of convenient facts.

Answer 8

Actually, most people ignore real scientists, preferring to get their scientific opinions from people who know absolutely nothing about science! Government policy in science and technology is based on this principle.

Answer 9

It is relative to the amount of damage that is to occur from either of those two examples, hence the appearance of dichotomy when there really isn't one in the Practise-actions undertaken, as described.

Answer 10

Amen brother! Couldn't agree more! The reason they believe is that it suits their agenda....Al Gore is making millions off of global warming.....when in doubt, follow the money trail...it usually leads to the answer.!