Do you have to have an education in science before opening your mouth about global warming?

Question

So much science and math go into this debate that you are stupid if your only justification is what Al Gore and Sheryl Crow have to tell you. Stop thinking you are so much smarter than everyone else and get a B.S., not an art degree, and come back to the table and speak intelligently.

Im not saying your IQ has to be above such and such, but you better do your bookwork and know something other than what a biased individual tells you. And this debate can exclude people because facts are not known and proven. People who are not objective have no place in this arguement. If you cannot admit that scientific evidence is inconclusive, then you are obviously not an objective mind. And Al Gore has a bachelors of art in government from Harvard. His scientific background is the same as mickey mouse's.

Answer 1

Although I'm not a professional scientist, I have had a number of papers published in scientific journals, including Nature. In my time here on Yahoo Answers, I have cited dozens of peer-reviewed scientific research to support my positions, and I have seen dozens more cited by others in support of anthropogenic global warming. During that same time, I have seen a grand total of two -- yes two -- peer-reviewed papers cited by global warming skeptics.

It's utterly clear to me where the science lies in this debate, and it should be utterly clear to anyone who reads the relevant literature. And by 'relevant literature' I mean scientific journals, not blogs. The problem is that one side -- the skeptical side -- doesn't take the trouble to read. As Jesus said, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

Answer 2

Well I think you have somewhat of a valid point. A lot of people who haven't educated themselves on global warming scientific research refuse to believe that it's caused by humans, and then they'll find some bogus explanation like it's caused by soda pop, and they'll believe it because they don't know any better and then spread the misinformation.

I do have degrees and a career in science, but I don't think you need this kind of background to debate global warming. You do need to do some research, however. The top climate scientists in the world are convinced that humans are the primary cause of global warming, and it always amazes me that the layperson with no science background who's done virtually no research on the issue is convinced that he's right and the experts are wrong.

As for the scientific evidence, it is certainly not inconclusive, and I don't know why you would claim otherwise. Al Gore is just a messenger presenting the scientific evidence. If you look at the IPCC report or papers written by any number of climate scientists, they're the ones who have studied the issue and concluded that global warming is primarily caused by humans. If it's good enough for them I don't understand why it's not good enough for you.

Answer 3

Any solution to the problem is political, and so everyone has a say. Unfortunately, the problem itself can only be expressed in scientific and technical terms, and the framing of the problem is best left to experts (who will not agree among themselves about all the scientific issues). I think most people will agree on who the relevant experts are. Those who oppose any action on global warming, for whatever reason, are likely to attack these experts and put forward their own. It's a little like medicine: most people get good medical advice from recognized practitioners, while some are deluded by quacks, or, for whatever reason, support quackish ideas. The debate now, I think, has reached a tipping point where the majority of people are persuaded that global warming is a real problem. The solution will involve empowering a democratically-selected group of real experts.

P.S. There are times when scientific evidence is conclusive. There are plenty of things that are so well established in science that they can be taken as true, for all practical purposes. We have not, perhaps, quite gotten to that point on the question of anthropogenic global warming, but the weight of evidence strongly indicates a need for action: the likelihood of the scientific consensus being wrong is small, and there is a strong likelihood of enormous harm if it is correct. The lack of absolute certainty should not be taken as an excuse for inaction. By the time we are sure, we could be in the middle of a mass extinction, including human gigadeaths.

Answer 4

If someone is going to debate global warming at an advanced level than a degree or a very broad understanding of the subject is essential. There is much more to it than the average person on the street understands and even after 23 years studying and research I'm learning new things every day.

At the same time it's important not to exclude anyone from the debate, this is an issue which affects everybody and as such they have a right to know what's going on and to have their say. All ideas and opinions should be taken on board and those with the expertise should carefully consider them.

To give you an example, one of the primary ideas currently being considered as a mean of combatting global warming came about as the result of a 15 year old schoolgirl doing a science project. Her idea has been taken on board by the relevant experts and is now being researched and developed.

Answer 5

I'm not an expert but it's proven scientific fact that there is a hole in the ozone layer above the north pole and ever since it was first studied, it is becoming bigger every year. It's common sense that sunlight that shines through that hole is not filtered by ozone. Although some of the light is reflected back up into the sky, more of it becomes trapped by not reflecting directly back out of the hole it came into. Most of the unfiltered sunlight becomes trapped within the atmosphere as heat.

If you think that the polar icecaps melting away is just myth and propaganda, or just some sort of natural cycle that occurs on a regular basis, when was the last time it happened? Why is environmental ignorance so popular with neocon fundies? Do you hate the planet you live on?

Answer 6

Some bits of the theory are at the most basic level fairly simple and easily understood by average Joe Schmo's like you and me, but some bits are so technical and complicated that we have no choice but to take the scientist's at their word. That's why you'll never hear a theory proponent ever say they know better than scientists about it. Oddly enough, the people doing what you're talking about are the theory's =opponents=, who like to claim that scientists have somehow managed to miss some vital aspect of climate change that completely disproves the theory (they haven't), or are involved in some massive, worldwide conspiracy.

And I most certainly do not have to think the evidence is inconclusive to have an objective mind. I need only be willing to accept new evidence if any is ever produced even if it goes against what I currently believe.

Answer 7

There is so much more global warming information out there in medialand that doesn't come from the Gores and Crows of the world. Each person is entitled to have an opinion and speak; classical debates are for experts., which these two are not. My field of interest is religion and mythology so I suggest we build and ark.

Answer 8

I have a PhD and do research on the effects of global climate change. That said... I don't think that if someone chooses to educate themselves on a topic that they are necessarily less qualified than I am to speak on the issue publicly.

I don't have a degree in religion, but feel confident that I've studied enough on my own to add to an intelligent conversation about the topic. I don't have a degree in culinary arts, but can certainly hold my own in a kitchen.

I agree with you in that if Sheryl Crow and Al Gore are your only sources of information, then you're selling yourself short. But you don't necessarily have to be a scientist to inform yourself enough to speak intelligently.

Answer 9

Everyone has a right to state their opinion. We are all living on this Earth. So much information is readily available on the Internet now that you can learn a lot without having done official studies on the subject. Motivation is a good learner. It's like saying that only psychologists have a right to speak about feelings. I do believe that facts provided by science are very valuable in this subject. I also think that facts are just what the people mentioned are providing.

Answer 10

is my BSc Hons good enough?
Science is not about being smart, but being objective. Objectivly the science behind htttp://www.ipcc.ch, is as good as it gets. Few other areas have had as much critical scrutiny.

and Al Gore has a science educatuon, Sheryl Crow I don't know.

"Global warming" debate is not about the science, that is done and proven, but about power, the politics and money. It is about our culture and how we relate to this planet in a way that will support a thriving human civilisation.
http://www.greatturningtimes.org

Climate change will affect everyone, and every being. Everyone must be engaged in changing from the current industrial destructive growth society,