What percentage of man-made global warming doubters do you think understand the basic science?
We continually see questions from AGW doubters which fail to grasp the basic science of climate change. For example, failing to differentiate between weather and climate (i.e. 'why is it cold during winter if AGW is true?'), or failing to understand the greenhouse effect (i.e. 'CO2 does not lead, it lags').
Even some of the most prolific AGW doubter YA participants who have had this basic science explained to then ad infinitum still fail to comprehend this basic science. Or if they do understand it, when others make these errors, they fail to correct them (i.e. answering 'it's cold during the winter because AGW is a hoax').
So I wonder, what percentage of man-made global warming doubters do you think understand the basic science of climate change?
pegminer2008-11-22T17:07:48Z
Favorite Answer
I don't think many understand science in a quantitative way, and if you don't have any feel for numbers then you don't really understand it. Still, I'd say perhaps 10% understand the basic science, but have so many preconceptions that they can't get past their denial.
In response to your first respondent, who I know doesn't understand basic science (sorry, but that's clearly true from all your responses), it's not such a bad thing to believe in what scientists say if you don't understand science, but it is a problem if you don't understand science and still try and deny science--if you don't know science you shouldn't be voicing opinions on whether it's true or not.
EDIT: It's amazing how someone like Charles M can manage to lose all credibility in his first sentence. Saying things like that just make Dana's question seem reasonable. I see that he goes on for several paragraphs, but did he say anything useful in them? I don't know, because he lied in the very first sentence, so why should I read more? If doubters want to make points with their arguments, perhaps they shouldn't start with lies.
Oh, and I should say that if he really doesn't think he's lying, then he does know nothing about science. I'm sorry to put this so bluntly--but blatant lies need to be called out.
Firstly I do understand the science, I have three science majors including maths, chemistry and biology. I have also been retired long enough to actually read most of what is about. The report of the Panel took a month to struggle through. I would have to say that there are very few people on this planet who are capable of understanding the science of climate change. Even Climatologists can be ignorant of the effects of Solar winds and even sunspots despite the links that have been made between sunspot activity and rainfall in various studies. They simply do not have the time to work and do the necessary reading. Most people of course do not have the reading capacity and background knowledge to understand what they read. You ask for an opinion so I will give one: 1) There is a very small percentage of the "doubters" who understand the science. 2)There are so many who simply accept AGW without question that the percentage of those who have any real understanding of the science is even smaller. In fact the absolute number of those who understand most of the science probably favours the doubters, which is really to say that they do not accept all of it. That constitutes doubt. Please note that I am referring to ALL of the science, not just the pieces!! It is likely that you mean something different. The problem with the explanations is that they are quite incomplete and most likely misunderstood by the people delivering them and so create more doubt.
Why don't you understand that observation is a part of science also?
The climate has been cooling since 1998. Yet supporters of this weak theory just came out after the fact and said it was expected. (Might have been more credible if they had said that before the data came out)
They claim that CO2 is a cause of AGW when a closer look at the data sets indicates that it is more likely a result. Warmer temperatures release CO2 from the ocean.
Not a single claim made by the supporters of this theory can use it to make any accurate predictions closer than a generation away when they are not likely to need funding anymore.
The biggest single reason I refuse to accept this theory though is because the supporters will not allow any conflicting evidence to be examined. It is automatically dismissed as being "bought and paid for by big oil". A real scientist tests all evidence not just the evidence that he knows will support his pet theory.
I do not think believers understand basic principles of science. Jan Veizer in a paper called Celestial Climate Driver: A Perspective from Four Billion Years of the Carbon Cycle wrote:
"Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge." (Basically what he is said is that the sun drives climate, and when temperatures and the sun's activity move in opposite directions it is due to noise from the PDO).
Last year the PDO shifted from warm to cool, the sun's activity decreased, and temperatures dropped. Basic science principles state that empirical evidence takes precedence over theory. For the time being Veizer's theory is correct. If temperatures start to rise again, then he will be proved wrong.
Another reason why he arrived at this conclusion is that he listened to his head and not his heart:
"Personally, this last decade hasbeen a trying period because of theyears of internal struggle between what I wanted to believe and where the empirical record and its logic were leading me."
Extreme weather and regional climate has been the emphasis for both sides. I also find myself dismayed with those examples. Though when the dynamics are highlighted and not listed as a isolated relationship. I can relate just a little more readily. And yes I know the difference between long term climate studies opposed to short term events.
Anyway I will let the question stand as a refresher.