Why do so many deniers have an anti-science attitude?

I think he just makes the point that science is not fraught with perfections of humanity. And as with every endeavor susceptible to human error and quirk. I know an electrical engineer, and yes he actually has worked in the field for many years, but can't he grasp the mechanical concept of changing an electrical fixture in his own house. A lawyer in town who doesn't understand the ethics of driving while drunk and eventually ran over and killed a bicyclist. A surgeon who cant change his own tire. Enough examples. It's not all that ridiculous.

And no most of what I see around me ain't here because of scientist's. Architect's, Engineers, Inventor's, Common labour had more to do with it.

"and if you don't think an engineer is a scientitst, then ask yourself: where do you think they got all those equations they use?"

Oh please. The Egyptians, the Romans The medieval stone masons and carpenters that built some pretty humongous cathedral's. to name a few. But if you want to get into vagaries I can go out and study a cow pie for a couple days. take some notes and call myself a scientist.

That's all fine Patrick but nowhere in your Dubai source does it mention any scientists. Besides I thought environmetalists called all that a terrible thing to do to the environment.

I don't know if Ben is clueless or not. Perhaps he's simply opinionated and confrontational. I don't know that most of the deniers are anti-science. As the link below observes, there are hard facts, there are soft facts, and there is a tendency by the popular media to go for ratings through the use of sound bites and photo ops, that doesn't exactly help the situation.

One problem is the multi-faceting aspect of the overall issue, and a lack of understanding of the terminology at play. But what seems to drive almost all of the naysayers/trolls/deniers is an underlying sense of hostility. Some of that hostility is directed at the science, our former vice-president, the U.N., etc. People need a target for that hostility, and it's hard work to find the good information in the midst of all the packaging. If you're a denier, you're going to seek out sources of "information" that support your belief, because, it seems, the world would end if you have to admit that you were wrong.

When you remember that we live in a world where people once argued that the world was flat, and the earth was the center of the universe -- despite evidence to the contrary -- I think you'll agree that patience is needed and that sometimes you just have to turn the other cheek and let the cheap shots fall by the wayside.

Answer below, more important stuff first.

John Sol - You have Ben O wrong. I can't quite figure him out. He often says sensible things, then implies (never states head on) that global warming may not be real. It's as if he just hasn't studied the science enough, for whatever reason. He's surely capable.

The answer - many (not all) of the deniers here trash science because, taken as a whole, the science clearly shows global warming is real and mostly caused by us. They can't accept science and keep their prejudice.

A few (Ron C is the outstanding example), don't trash science, but simply support a few "skeptics" with strange theories over the vast majority of the scientific community. Once again I don't quite understand. They may be simply be amateur skeptics, much as Richard Lindzen is a professional skeptic, who has made a career out of opposing the mainstream position.

What they miss is that, when a scientist is swimming against the tide, almost always he's wrong. They use Galileo and Einstein as examples of exceptions, which is flat wrong. Galileo and Einstein were accepted by the scientific community, from the start. Because they had good data that proved their case. It was ignorant and unscientific "skeptics" who opposed them, particularly in the case of Galileo.

Well it's pretty obvious that Ben O is clueless with regards to how scientific research works.

It's essentially publish or perish. If you're not publishing studies and not bringing in grant money, it's hard for an institution to keep paying your salary.

If you're a "complete quack", not only will you lose respect among your scientific peers, but you won't be able to publish papers or receive grant money, so you probably won't even remain employed for very long. Unless you go to ExxonMobile with a quack anti-global warming theory, maybe.

Many deniers have an anti-science attitude because the science tells us what they don't want to hear - that humans are the primary cause of the current global warming. It's almost impossible to be a global warming denier without being anti-science.

Actually, the skeptical climatologists are better scientists than the alarmists. I would put the work of Roger Pielke, Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Roy Spencer, Stephen Schwartz, Stephen McIntyre, Anthony Watts, William Cotton, Hendrik Svensmark and Nir Shaviv up against any group of ten alarmists you can think of. These are the guys who are pushing climate science forward right now.

Look at the alarmists: Michael Mann was caught hiding results contrary to his "Hockey Stick" conclusions. James Hanson from NASA has been caught making mistakes. Phil Jones at CRU is still hiding his data, methods and source code so the work the IPCC relies on is pseudoscience and not real science. Wei-Chyung Wang is currently under investigation for fabricating claims regarding station quality. The dendro guys are still using the strip bark bristlecone pine series even though the National Academies of Science said they are not a temperature proxy. "The Divergence Problem" is the 800 pound gorilla in the room with these dendro guys and they do not know what to do about it. Soon they will have to admit the climate today is unexceptional.

This guy is completely right. When Michael Mann got caught, there should have been consequences. We do not yet know if there will be consequences for Wei-Chyung Wang. I still think there will be consequences for Jones. There should be consequences for contravening the testability requirements of science. All of these guys are try to hide their data, methods and code. Hanson has recently provided his some of his source code and so he looks incompetent and not purely unethical.

For the simple reason that they want people to believe that they are better or knowledgeable than any scientists or proffessionals in any topics. Actually they have an inferiority complex. The Chinese have a saying for people like that "If you don't open your mouth nobody will know that you are dumb".

On the contrary. Global warming alarmist are the ones who are anti-science. Skeptics are harassed and even issued death threats. Most skeptics support the notion to let the scientist decide if global warming is an issue, without any pressure and harassment from politicians and lobby groups.

Climatologists who support the theory are distorting science for political and monetary gains:

“With the publication of the article in Science [in 1995], I

gained significant credibility in the community of scientists

working on climate change. They thought I was one of

them, someone who would pervert science in the service of

social and political causes. So one of them let his guard

down. A major person working in the area of climate

change and global warming sent me an astonishing email

that said “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm

Period.”

Source: Presentation by S McIntyre At Conference Stockholm Sweden, September 9 2006

Ridicule away, but I am definitely not anti-science.

Scientists are wrong all the time, it's an occupational hazard. Einstein (for example) was wrong about many things. It's quite sociably acceptable for a scientist to be wrong and for that reason I believe that some researchers can get away with being quacks.

I'm sure all believers agree, but only when talking about researchers who disagree with AGW.

I know, Ben O seems to be a regular contributor of illogical arguments.

Perhaps they are deniers because they had an anti-science attitude in the first place, and it simply shows itself in relation to GW.

They are probably anti science because they don't understand it, I am not a scientist but I regularly try to inform about basic scientific principles, I'm not sure it has too much effect.

Once you assume they don't understand science then it all makes sense.