Who do you trust to provide reliable information about global warming and climate change?

Question

For example, do you trust the media, governments, scientists, any particular individuals etc

Answer 1

psychology of climate change: almost everyone has a certain slant on the issue. to me the key is to know what that slant is, and consider the source of any information.

if you read and hear enough, patterns will emerge. certain people with use the same arguments to refute or support over and over again. you have seen it yourself with the countless weather vs. climate idiocies, it would be funny in its predictability if it weren't so damned serious an issue.

without naming names, i tend to be skeptical of people with a personal stake in having the debate swing one way or the other. this would rule out anyone associated with oil companies. also not too trusting of governments that may have something to gain politically, monetarily, or ecologically if global warming were allowed to run uncontrolled. scientists can be 'bought out' and their objectivity put in question too. and hate mongers advocating violence tend toward the extreme, i imagine.

it's impossible to tell exactly who's on what side of the issue. the ones i 'trust' the most are oddly enough, those whose bias never shows. they come off to me as more objective if i can't ascertain which way their argument will go; even the fact that they are willing to consider both sides puts them hands and feet above the rest.

i guess i like to look at a wide wide variety of materials and resources and slowly deliberately draw my own conclusions. it might be dangerous to do it that way, but i trust my own intuition.

something IS wrong out there, and i want to know more.

Answer 2

You won't find it on the web. Opinion is polarised because there are only two positions. Q: Either the World is warming or it isn't. A: No-one knows the answer in an unbiased way. Q: If it's warming is the warming caused by humans burning Fossil Fuel? A: it seems obvious but the data doesn't support it. Best guess is that the world warmed by 0.6 degrees in the last Century. This is within the margin of error of the measurements, so may be non-existent. Q: If it is warming, is that a bad thing? A: Before the last ice age, the poles were free of ice - this will come again, in the natural order of things. Probably not within the next few thousand years, though. In the past a 2 degree warming has resulted in a massive explosion of life. Does this help?

Answer 3

I tend to trust non-profit organizations. What would they get out of lying? I also tend to trust scientists who are not funded by a particular political party. I also tend to believe in climate change from my own personal experience on Earth. I'm 26 yrs old and have noticed that the summers are a hell of a lot hotter and more humid now than they ever were when I was a kid. The winters are also shorter and there is not nearly the amount of snow we used to get. Ski areas are complaining about the short seasons, we used to ski into early May and now March. People are selling their snow mobiles because they only got to use them 2-3 times last winter. I have seen home videos of chunks of glacier falling into the ocean in Alaska. I could go on and on.
Most of the people who are debating global warming are about my age and older, don't they see these things happening too?

Answer 4

I don't really trust people. I trust what they say if it's backed up by scientific data, which is generally the case when the people are climate scientists. I suppose I trust climate scientists because their papers are peer-reviewed by the time I hear what they have to say, and if they say something wrong I'll find out about it.

I definitely don't trust the media, because journalists generally have a poor understanding of science, and try too hard to be "unbiased", which actually makes them biased.

I don't trust governments, because they can only do as much as their voters will let them do, and they know it. They also tend to say things the voters want to hear.

So pretty much I just trust scientists because I can always go check their data and verify their conclusions.

Answer 5

I don't think you can trust anyone. Everyone has an agenda, it might be political, financial, or just entertainment. The fact is that we all know that we pollute and almost everyone doesn't do their part to recycle. The new big thing is water bottles polluting landfills and seeping into the water table. The bottles are made from petroleum products. The makers of bottled water hasn't shut down production or switched to different packaging, have they? We pollute are bodies even worse than we pollute the planet. What it comes down to is that what we do to this planet is nothing compared to what the planet does to itself. Ive seen charts on the earths climate patterns and we live in a very hospitable pattern. In 10 thousand years the planet could be an ice ball or so hot, that it brings a new definition to global warming. Just clean up after yourself and do what you can to take care of this earth. There are bigger issues to deal with. Take for instance, why are people starving to death, why are people dying of cancer, why do people kill in the name of God, Why don't people build their communities in deserts. Why don't we have more wind farms, Why doesn't every new house built have solar panels. Why does are politicians lie? I could go on forever. Sorry I got out of control.

Answer 6

I would trust people who have done research on global warming not just looking at the last 25 years but people who have looking over the last couple million years and if the the majority of those people think we are in trouble I might start listening, but everything I have heard has been from the last 25-50 years so I'm not buying it last I checked the earth is more then 100 years old but I could be wrong :)

Answer 7

trust idiotic journalists that write so vaguely that you don't even know what they are saying? no way--they are such conformists on top of it: they write ANYTHING to sell their rags! the real journalists are all dead. would i trust TV news? heck no, they have their own agenda to stay on the air too, and they are lazy--they do not delve to find truth!

why would i believe the government? GW is so popular these days, what with the mega disaster stories all over TV, that the people in the government, who do not work very much, love spending our tax dollars on investigations such as the effect that more water in the atlantic might have on our submarines, as though all this water will flood the atlantic tomorrow!

the only scientists that i give credence to are those that take no grant money or whose job is not hanging on the line of the money tree of the myth that PEOPLE are the cause of GW, therefore, that they must feel the GUILT for having created GW and perpetuating it.

CLIMATE CHANGE, not GW, is what is occurring now. (i myself have studied a LOT of science). the earth gets cold. the earth gets warm. it is getting warm now. i don't think it will lead to any of the mega-disasters shown on TV, especially in our lifetimes.

btw: when you see pictures of ice shelves breaking off of the north pole and ice melting on the shores of greenland, why don't they ever show other sides of the area in question? because THOSE parts are not breaking off/melting. actually, in fact, the ice inland of greenland is getting much thicker and harder. anartica would have to move to the equator for ITS ice to melt, at all.

Answer 8

When I am seeking information about the climate I look at what the scientists that study the climate say.

Answer 9

I know areas which once had forests or woods now do not.

I know that we are running out of landfill sites because people are producing too much waste.

I see farmers adding tractor load after tractor load of chemicals to either drenched or flooded barren fields with dead compacted soil.

I can put a plant pot in the fridge before I water it to prove how it effects absorption of water, it runs off. This is the same as adding cold rain to hot dry soil or deforestation.

I know the benefits of changing micro climates, because I have physically done it at home. Changed a wind swept depleted site into a diverse highly productive eco system.

I can see the differences on Google Earth of how population increase has changed the landscape, as compared to when I was a child.

I can Google Earth my old homes. Show the concreting over of fields where I used to play.

Show how by planting loads of trees 20 years ago has totally greened a concrete estate and stabilized the micro climate. How old neighbours who concreted over their own gardens fought a long campaign to have Tree Preservation Orders placed on the very trees they objected to being planted because they now recognize the benefits the trees have brought to their lives in terms of habitat, shade,etc.

I have read a variety of source materials, peer reviewed materials and listened to what people say.

In my opinion, the climate is changing. I can see that. Feel that. I am no scientist, but scientific consensus confirm my own understanding and experience.

I believe in action. When you see a global warming expert go to the effort of mass planting trees on his own land I consider it is a safe bet that he believes in it too.

I remember the winter of discontent as a young child. The Coal Strikes, how even short interruptions in power supply brought our country to her knees. Can we take the risk of doing nothing?

I may be wrong, it happens. If I am wrong I have already acted The changes I am making are all beneficial to me, my family, and local community. Who doesn't want to live a low impact lifestyle? Where trees provide your wonderful rich environment and if things go drastically wrong can be used as your retirement pension? Yes. I consider that its happening. If I am wrong, then what I have got to lose?

Answer 10

I don't trust anyone based solely on their position of authority, but I tend to trust those scientists who consistently employ scientific method - more so empirical than theoretical. I tend to distrust those who act as if it is sound use of Occam's razor to oversimplify a problem, forgetting that the razor cut's both ways: one should eliminate as many assumptions as possible.

I tend to distrust those who hide behind consensus.

I tend to distrust those theorists who self-proclaim their work "proven".

I tend to distrust those who proclaim the "debate is over".

I tend to distrust those who say that anyone who doesn't believe the way they do is unintelligent.

I tend to distrust those who diagnose the problem with the sole responsibility of solving it.

No one - not the "pro" or "con" crowd - is immune from the pitfalls I described. No one practices ideal scientific method all the time...

...nor am I qualified to recognize it all the time.