Are people going by the scientific method or popular opinion to learn about global warming?

Question

How many lay people, when debating global warming, base their arguments on scientific data that they've personally researched and studied themselves rather than views or opinions they've heard, read or watched in movies? Does the average American take the time to properly educate themselves about important issues using logic and rational, do they simply adopt outside opinions and use their feelings to make decisions?

Answer 1

I do like to look at academic peer reviewed materials instead of pop science lit.

Answer 2

The debate should be among climatologists, not political pundits including the likes of Rush and Al Gore.

However people will argue that science is not ruled by consensus, this is true. However, climatology is not an exact science. Nothing can be proven until after it happens. Proof one way or another will never happen. Therefore, we must rely on the opinions of these climatologists in a consensus fashion.

To those that claim they were wrong in the 70's about a coming ice age, there were a few scientists who speculated (note this is less strong word than predict) that an ice age might be coming in the next 1000 years. The media blew this completely out of proportion. There was not a prediction of an ice age in the 70's except by Newsweek to try to sell magazines.

Finally, money does not drive scientists in general. These scientists are not getting rich by predicting global warming. Maybe Al Gore is, but you will find very few rich climatologists. People do not go into the sciences to be rich. If they wanted to be rich, they would have gotten a much easier degree like an MBA.

Answer 3

Global warming is happening.... and yet the term "global warming" has now been divided in to two camps of thought. Both are looking through a very small hole and a tiny view. It may be just a naturall evolutionary process and we are feeling uncomforatble with its implications.

I do not think the majority of people read anything, much less science! And I also believe that those that do read should create conversational groups and share what they know, ideas and thoughts. We are just begining to understand some of the dynamics of our sun and solar flares, of our earth and her tectonic plates which have moved many times during earths life, just begining to record ice melts and measure temperatures. It takes many minds from all over the world to come up with hypothesis on warming.

Ego loves to be right, so most people just choose a side they hear about, and feel passionate about, and then explore its ramifications through others reactions. If they seem to be on the wrong side of the issue too often, they might switch!

So it might be helpful to the majority of people to get alot more opinions, views and research in the news, other than the two present polarized views, to move this important discussion further along.

But both camps are not on target according to my study and little knowledge base. This is a big globe we live on!

Answer 4

particular, see the comentary above however the final gist is that CO2 stages enhance because of fact the globe is at recent warming, notice that greater CO2 is the end result and not the reason. whether this weren't the case, the oceans generate ninety 9% + of the co2 presently being emitted - so if humand ceased ALL production of CO2 it may no longer particularly make a distinction besides. the sturdy information is that CO2 production is definitely academic to international warming. The earth has long exceeded by chillier and warmer classes than now in the present previous (thousand of years as destructive to tens of millions). we are having a heat cycle on the 2nd attributable to Sunspot pastime. the concern is that there are various tens of 1000's of jobs in line with "coping with international warming and analyze" - some charities too - all of which might might desire to confess they're valueless if and while the sheep cease following blindly - and demand to work out slightly evidence. It additionally provides governments an attractive excuse to introduce "carbon tax" and different innovations to screw us over for slightly extra money than they did final twelve months. Mark

Answer 5

Unfortunately many people go by what they hear in the mainstream (or right-wing) media. It really scares me how many people take Rush Limbaugh's word on this scientific issue.

Personally I go by the scientific evidence, which overwhelmingly points to humans as the primary cause of the current global warming. In fact I spend most of my time on Y!A correcting people who say things like 'Mars is warming - are there SUVs there?' or 'carbonation in soda is causing global warming' or 'Global warming is BS because 1934 was the hottest year!' (Rush Limbaugh can take a lot of credit for that bit of misinformation).

It's a pain in the butt, but somebody has to correct all the misinformation out there.

Answer 6

Science, by definition, is only supportable by evidence. There's not enough 'science' behind global warming to support it to the point of placing blame or creating legislation. But like someone else mentioned, it's not a bad idea to be mindful of pollution. Rewarding those who reduce pollution instead of punishing those who don't is a better solution to the whole issue.

Answer 7

There are two sides to every story.

Yes I have looked at both sides rationally.

Overwhelmingly, I have come to the conclusion that Global Warming is not an anomaly that is naturally caused, but rather the result of mans influence on our atmosphere.

Global warming is real. And scary as hell.

Peace

Jim

.

Answer 8

Unfortunately people believe what they want to hear (on both sides of the political spectrum).

The science seems incomplete on the issue, but it would not be a bad idea to limit the pollution in the world.

Answer 9

I think too many people are relying on "An Inconvenient Truth". People still quote it even when most "facts" in that entertainment movie have been proven wrong.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Anq6kfBgHDJ3P2Hgc8jx_8zsy6IX?qid=20070815161626AAgxXEK

The Global Warming Hoax can no longer be blamed on man. All of the planets in the solar system have global warming, including Pluto which is no longer a planet. The global warming on mars mirrors the global warming on earth. (Watch this video for some of the facts: http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4PoKY/The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle )

Al Gore is wrong says"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change". The IPCC has said there will not be massive flooding like what Al Gore's movie says. They say the ocean will rise by 2 feet at most.

And new data from brand new solar satellites show that the temperature of the sun is constantly changing. Also, the strongest solar flares on record have been happening during the past decade. Because of a recently launched satellite, we now know the sun's temperature is changing constantly. http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3067117
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kriqm3DITRQ&NR=1

The man-made global warming theory has not been proven true. The IPCC only reached a "CONSENSUS" and that proves nothing. There is a lead IPCC author that disagrees with the theory. Video: http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4PoKY/The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle

"The sun is heading into a new season of turbulent solar activity. Just like its seasonal hurricane predictions, on April 25, 2007, the National Oceanic and" http://www.technologynewsdaily.com/node/6852

NASA says the sun caused the earth to leave the great ice age in less than 20 years. 20 years is like a second. And there is nothing humans can do to change how the sun changes the temperature of the earth.
NASA: "Rapid changes between ice ages and warm periods (called interglacials) are recorded in the Greenland ice sheet. Occurring over ONE OR TWO DECADES, the warming of the Earth at the end of the last ice age happened much faster than the rate of change of the Earth’s orbit."
NASA link: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Paleoclimatology_Evidence/Images/gisp2_temperature.gif

NASA data has proved that the "Little Ice Age" was caused by less light reaching the earth ("solar variability", which means changes in the sun). NASA's data about the little ice age: http://tinyurl.com/227h3p (This data can be copied and pasted it into Excel to chart it.)

Other facts:
1) 6,000 years ago, the earth was hotter than it is today. 6,000 years is less than a second when compared with the age of the earth.
2) Temperatures dropped in the 1950's and 1990's when CO2 levels were increasing.
3) 140,000 years ago the earth had record CO2 levels and there were no gasoline powered cars.
4) 20,000 years ago, Canada was one big ice cube and half of the U.S. was covered with Ice. The grand canyon was formed by melting ice ages over 20 million years.
5) The temperature of the Earth has only increased by 0.65 of a degree in the last 110 years. There were faster increases in temperatures around 10,000 years ago and there were no gasoline powered cars during that time.
6) Strong hurricanes are normal. Hundreds of years ago, they used to sink ships off of the coast of Florida.

Answer 10

Its worse than that, I know people who only believe what TV preachers tell them. You know the same TV preachers who think science is evil? Science is evil so they really know what they're talking about when they talk science.