Why is it that the less people know about the relevant science, the more certain they are about global warming

Question

I'm not completely writing off human involvement in global warming completely, but, it does seem that the less people know about it, the more certain they are that global warming is real and created by humans.

Answer 1

cause they're listening to the doomsayers led by that idiot, Algore. if folks only knew how flawed the data collection process has been, & for how short a period of time that data has been collected relative to the age of the planet, they'd laugh these global warming pumpers right off the stage.

Answer 2

I'm not a scientist and I believe in global warming so I guess your statement could be right when it concerns me. (I do have knowledge in natural science though.)

My skill however is to collect and analyze information and based upon the information I receive make my own judgements. Before I was completely sure on what to believe in this issue, I always tried to debunk every single argument I heard from both sides. Every time, I sooner or later in that chain came to a dead end where there where no matching arguments against a claim. And every time that happened the conclusion was it could not refute that global warming is due to humans and that it might be a serious threat.

In Sweden where I live it is definitely the other way around about education and belief in global warming. The few who contradict it are mainly people who hasn't done their homework.

Answer 3

A lot of it has to do with the Quasi Religous view of Computer Models.

Many believe that if it comes out of a supercomputer it must be true. Most people are unaware of the speculative nature of computer statistical modeling.

As a financial analyst, I am very aware of the huge limitations of computer models and limited usefulness. (Hence current crisis in the subprime mortgage derivative market) What I've read of the modeling being done on the environment, I can see many faults in the processing of raw data. The algorithms being used are based on poorly understood science (clouds formation to name one example).

But, like conspiracy theories, computer models give the statistical neophyte a sense of knowledge to parrot whatever evidence lends credibility to their pre conceived notions, and ignore everything else.

Answer 4

Easy on the chemists trevor- i wouldn't put them on the same level as a botanist in this discussion, who else understands things like concentration gradients, chemical thermodynamics (of mixtures), temperature dependence of solutes, or IR and UV-vis absorption spectrum, mass spec of ice core samples? These are extremely important ideas in the study of the carbon cycle, thermohaline cycle, and many more of earths processes, atmospheric chemists take part in plenty of climate research. I've never met a chemist who didn't think human activity was most likely the main cause. I see no reason why the field of chemistry is any less valuable in this debate than say physics. (i gave you a thumbs up anyway)

Answer 5

I think it works both ways. How many people on either side have REALLY looked into and understand the science presented by either side? Do you think Rush's dittoheads look into his claims in any more depth than Gore's apostles do? The fact that what should be a scientific issue has broken down so neatly along political lines speaks volumes.

Answer 6

I would say that it's very much the opposite way around. On this forum for example are climatologists, environmental consultants, meteorologists and others who have in-depth knowledge of global warming. As far as I'm aware every such person on here concurs that global warming is primarily caused by humans.

The same is true in the 'real' world with almost every climatologist having the same opinion, there's only three that I'm aware of who would disagree, this puts the level of agreement amongst climatologists at greater than 99.9%.

Similarly, meteorologists, astrophysicists and others most closely involved with the science of global warming are in agreement in excess of 99.5% and within the wider scope of related and partially related scientific disciplines the figure is probably 98 to 99% agreement.

Those scientists that do not accept GW is primarily caused by humans tend to be botanists, geologists, chemists and the like - experts in their own field but not so much when it comes to global warming.

Answer 7

The vast majority of scientists who actually study climate (so, those who know a great deal about the relevant science) are convinced that global warming is ocurring and is driven by human activity.

Next hypothesis?

Answer 8

If one were to go by the evidence of this message board, you have that exactly backwards!

The ones who call Global Warming "liberal", "left-wing", or "Democrat" have managed to insulate themselves from the politics involved, as well as the science.

Answer 9

I honestly think you could say the same thing for a lot of people on the other side of the debate. Rush Limbaugh comes to mind. He truly has no scientific knowledge, but that doesn't stop him from having a say.

Answer 10

I've found it to be just the opposite, actually. Generally, a person's ignorance of the theory is inversely proportional to their propensity to accept it.

I present several of the above answers as evidence.