Why do you not trust the experts?

[Admiral_Bobski]

True enough...but as I say, there are always a lot of people very clued up on the odd stuff: where do they get that from? People will spend an awful lot of time looking for stuff that supposedly disagrees with the science, even though they would never look at the science.

Same as most conspiracy theories: take 9/11, JFK, etc, etc: people don't want to see the evidence before their eyes but prefer to look for another answer: must be a part of the human condition, I guess.

I think it's partly the nature of the debate, and partly to do with how well publicised it is - you wouldn't believe (or maybe you would!) how many Moon Landing Hoax Theorists there are on the web! There's thousands upon thousands of them, but they don't get the kind of exposure that Climate Change Conspiracy Theorists get.

People are crazy!

CB

[pottyprof]

BUT, then to be fair, much of the source evidence is available online for anyone to look at: people do seem to have a very good knack of finding the obscure and weird theories via the internet, which even the media do not touch with a barge pole, but they cannot find the science????!

In all fairness, there are quite a few members of the population who don't own a computer. The last couple of years has seen that number dwindle dramatically but the media have been feeding us 'information' for years. Yes the information is out there but some don't have a clue how to find it and are only just learning.

The media want a story at the end of the day. Matters not a jot if they publish something that can be picked to pieces. The majority of people will happily believe what is said. That is changing slowly as people discover how to find that piece of information they are after. It's not so much laziness, more a case of waiting for people to catch up and realise the the media are not always reporting the science correctly. I have been lucky to have caught onto the internet over 10 years ago. Some people still need to find their feet..

[Roo]

In all fairness, there are quite a few members of the population who don't own a computer.

Absolutely, but on any given forum, by definition all those do have access, but often choose not to take it up. I think, in the many cases, people make up their minds and then look for the evidence to back it up, not the other way around.

you wouldn't believe (or maybe you would!) how many Moon Landing Hoax Theorists there are on the web!

Oh I would...there's nearly as many in my field of prehistoric archaeology!!!

[BrickFielder]

No one person can really be an expert on climate change. It covers Biology ,Physics Chemistry, Meteorology to name just a few disciplines. What we do have in experts in smaller aspects of Climate Change and they usually agree about the broader picture of climate change but can become quite vociferous and contrary about their specific areas. I find a lot of the experts while generally agreeing with the IPCC view, disagree with the IPCC about smaller specifics.

If the low level detail is wrong then it might be like building a house on a foundation of straws in an earth quake zone.I think the answer is not that people distrust the experts but they distrust them outside of their expert areas and there is enough smaller scale variation in views to have some trepidation in the boundaries of effects that the IPCC has come up with. If you think about it, this is an argument that the IPCC may be under estimating as well as possibly over estimating the warming effects. My personal view is that they have not modelled the biological interactions that well and to be fair the IPCC does point out some areas where there may be some doubt about the numbers.

There is still a lot of work to be done in climate modelling with notable successes in modelling temperature have been notable failures in modelling heat transports and variability in cloud cover amongst other things.

[West is Best]

This is a serious question, which I want to try to understand. We place our trust in experts of all kinds, all the time. Our society is both technological and scientific, filled with the products of experts; cars, aircraft, computers, etc...

But when it comes to climate change, a frequent discussion which comes up is that the experts are/might be/could be wrong, so a person is sceptical about what they are being told.

Why?

It's because the facts are so dodgy P3. It's not that there aren't some facts to make the GW case. In fact there are lots of them. But they're incomplete, of insufficient timespan, insubstantially tested against the benchmark of history, in some cases open to diverse interpretations, and contain other frankly contradictory data which sometimes gets conveniently ignored. Given this, it's remarkable that some of the GW camp seem so determined to close out all debate. Witness the vitriol with which one or two on here (thankfully a minority) have treated my only saying that I was going to re-examine the evidence - quite reasonably given the way the weather itself doesn't seem to be entirely conforming to the GW script. In short: the argument for GW is not empirically proven.

Really and true the climate change lobby is it's own worst enemy. And I'm not sure I've ever really encountered that in any form of serious science before. Which is one of the reasons many people think it has taken on almost quasi-religious status.

Edited October 1, 2007 by West is Best

[Guest Viking141]

Lots of response; good!

Vikes:

True, it does not logically follow. However, if the question that laserguy's response implies, 'How can I tell what is 'good' or 'bad' science/', which is related to 'How do I know who to believe?', is being considered, then one of the criteria for evaluating the likely credibility of a piece of information is the source of that information, and that source's credibility. Though I am cynical about the media at times, I'll say that I'm more inclined to pay attention to a story in the Guardian or the FT than one in the National Enquirer. This doesn't mean I am biased, only that I have used my discernment in evaluating the credibility of the source.

:)P

But thats my entire point Fergus, the credibility or otherwise of the author, his/her track record or those sponsoring the paper are NOT RELEVANT. The only thing that is relevant is - "is the science right or wrong?" Subjective judgements based on our own prejudices or preferences are just muddying the waters. The only judgement we need to make is - does the evidence/science support the conclusion being made? The fact that the person coming to that conclusion is a complete looney tune or a hunbacked toadoid from the planet Neptune is a Red Herring and not relevant.

[Gray-Wolf]

It is not that I don't 'trust' the experts but I do feel that the playing field seems to be changing a lot faster than the 'imperial methodology' allows for. It becomes increasingly irksome to actually go to the horses mouth only to hear it spouting 'yesterdays news' that has been relegated to such only a matter of weeks before.

I end up feeling (in my paranoia) that they know (or at least concretely suspect) far more than they are willing to disclose to 'Joe public' purely because it is not backed up with years of evidence and then peer reviewed (so their backs are covered).

This is (IMHO) purely watching their own backs and this state exists due to both the money and venom that the 'naysayers' have posses over the years even though today their are few in positions of power will to totally dismiss the notion that we are partly to blame for the problems within the biosphere.

I suppose if it was my scientific credentials (and livelihood) on the line then I too may be a little less 'speculative' in my responses to the likes of me but it still leads to a climate of distrust.

[parmenides3]

WIB:

It's because the facts are so dodgy P3. It's not that there aren't some facts to make the GW case. In fact there are lots of them. But they're incomplete, of insufficient timespan, insubstantially tested against the benchmark of history, in some cases open to diverse interpretations, and contain other frankly contradictory data which sometimes gets conveniently ignored

So you are saying that the experts are wrong... which takes me back to the original question.

Vikes:

The only judgement we need to make is - does the evidence/science support the conclusion being made?

No, I didn't miss the point. I am absolutely delighted to have all evidence presented in support of, or contrary to, AGW, judged by this criterion. When this is done, what is the result? The problem is, 'ordinary folks' can't tell the difference between sound and unsound science, or as has been said, can't be bothered to try and work it out. I'd also note what I said earlier; all that ever seems to happend when a claim is responded to is that, if the person making the original claim doesn't like the answer, they just go away and think of some other reason to believe what they choose to believe. I have asked this question partly because, to me, the logic, science, evidence and sheer weight of expert opinion points my mind to one particular conclusion. What I want to understand is why this isn't the case for others.

Got to go and cook now.

:)P

[West is Best]

the experts

A mythical collective noun if ever there was!

[snowsure]

Perhaps the fact that Climate Science deals with the future is part of the problem.

Some people can accept explainations of the past but the future is too chaotic to comprehend. It consists of ranges of temperatures which, if forecast last than 10 days hence tend to be accurate. Any further out than that and it appears that the models are not right. They may be in the right area but if "scientists" are to be respected, the general public perhaps expect better results from their predictions.

I suggest that not enough people undertsand the scientific method and the part that exlpains in forecasting. (I for one know far too little acout climatology but I am less ignorant day on day. Ask me about Astrophysics though!)

[noggin]

There are so many experts who are saying different things, sometimes totally opposite things to each other. So how could it be that they can all be right?

I have decided to use my own general knowledge (gleaned over half a century) and my own observations and I conclude that the climate changes due to natural causes and that we are now entering a cooler period.

During my own lifetime we have had a cooldown, a warm-up, a cooldown, a warm-up and now we are about to enter another cooldown.

[Gray-Wolf]

A mythical collective noun if ever there was!

I'm deeply saddened when I run into this kind of dismissive 'coverall' .

Who ,exactly, do we think we are in the greater scheme of things?

We paw through other peoples efforts (folk who sacrificed a greater portion of their young adult lives to deserve the right to engage in such works) and dismiss them out of hand because of our own low brow thinking on subjects.

Every person has a 'passion', a few of us are able to recognise and pursue that passion (with the single mindedness it drives), fewer still are lucky enough to find themselves 'driven' in a subject that will benefit mankind and his continuance and selfishly pursue those ends.

I hope each and every critic will be happy enough , at the end of their lives, to show the rest the difference that their 'being' has brought to humanity.

Rant over.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Simply put, I think the main issues are the following:

1. Many people have vested interests; mitigating against possible anthropogenic climate change may involve people having to make sacrifices. Thus, there's a tendency to want to cling onto a faith that global warming is 'natural', keep a low profile and hope the issue goes away. A similar assessment applies to those who want snowy winters and don't want snow to become an endangered species over the British Isles.

2. Climate science is vague. That does not mean that there can't be a good idea of what is happening, what it means is that the future changes can only be realistically expressed in terms of probabilities. However, some people may use that as an argument to say climate scientists don't have a clue.

3. The findings and words of the scientists are generally corrupted by the media, such that a somewhat weakened version of their arguments reaches the general public.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Blast; your reply is interesting. First, you say that you think that there is enough contradictory evidence to cast doubt on AGW; this is an answer to my question, and an unseful starting point. then you refer to 'carbon trading and business/moneymaking...' which is a whole different issue, not about why you don't trust the experts, but about why you don't trust the people who want to capitalise on AGW by mugging us with products or taxes; that bit is more about the politics and praxis, not about the experts.

So, ignoring the second of your points, which maybe should be discussed elsewhere, and concentrating on the first: Where is this evidence? Where does it come from (as you can see, I argue that this does matter)? Has it not been responded to?

:)P

Hi P

Tomorrow with time I will post more. There are paeleoclimatologists who disagree with what's being 'forecast'. Even with the 'evidence' they still disagree. There are different people in NASA and even IPCC who have disagreed with projections.

more later Doc Martin now

BFTP

Edited October 1, 2007 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Devonian]

I couldn't agree more with the posts from Grey-Wolf and TWS.

Edited October 1, 2007 by Devonian

[The PIT]

There so many counter points and entrenched positions it's very difficult to know who's got a vested interest, who's just saying a load of rubbish, who's actually saying the truth and who's misreporting the data.

Sadly I'm not qualified to say who's right and who's wrong which is probably the case with many on here.

[saint]

it depends on what they say

saint :wacko:

[laserguy]

There so many counter points and entrenched positions it's very difficult to know who's got a vested interest, who's just saying a load of rubbish, who's actually saying the truth and who's misreporting the data.

Sadly I'm not qualified to say who's right and who's wrong which is probably the case with many on here.

In a nutshell. The disagreements and arguing will rumble on until if and when the climate/weather plays the joker and sorts us out. And stood in the ruins in our ragged clothes we'll still be arguing the toss! Even though I'm on the side of natural influence,I pay attention to the 'other side'. Bottom line from me: I'm adopting the stance of the outside observer,just letting the game pan out and watching with interest the swings and roundabouts. Quite honestly I don't know what else I can do,and it matters not which theory I suscribe to,does it not?

[davehsug]

Interesting thread P3.

I feel the way I do (agreeing that warming is happening, not totally convinced by AGW), because I have learned through my life to distrust those who shout loudest & with respect SF, emotional postings about the Maldives do your usually plausible, if occasionally rather hectoring & "superior" postings little justice.

If every scientist was saying the same thing it might be different, but they are not. The point about this being largely in the future is also valid.

I always suspect people, be they scientists or not who tell me with absolute conviction what will happen in the future based on what has happened in the past & is happening now. Particularly when similar things have happened before without the outcome which is now predicted.

So I choose to remain in the sceptic camp. Not a "naysayer" or even worse "denier" (a grossly offensive term particularly given it's past meaning). I will continue to make my own judgements & listen to any sensible argument which is presnted to me, whilst reserving the right to disregard it if I decide, on the balance of probability as I see it .

I know that some people get exasparated by we fence-sitters but healthy scepticism is essential in science (even from non-scientists). For instance I find the theory that we are now cooling based on 1 coolish summer rather silly.

Hope that ramble helps a little.

Dave

[disco-barry]

I probably don't trust the experts as i believe them to be underhanded liars funded\leaned on by governments without your knowledge, I am however willing to recycle/stop wasting electricity/share cars etc. etc. as i believe it's better to do something rather than nothing.

[Stratos Ferric]

...In response to SF, I am not saying that climate science is markedly different from other sciences. In fact I am saying the exact opposite - climate science is like any other conceptual science, which means that it is far more interpretive than a science which involves technological applications (such as mechanical engineering).

The difference between scientists and pilots or ski instructors is that science (conceptual science) is far more vague than mechanics - there is demonstrably a right way and a wrong way to fly a plane: if the plane takes off, flies and lands safely then you're doing it the right way; if it crashes then you're doing it the wrong way; there really isn't any room for interpretation. ...

CB

I'm fascinated that you consider the science of climate to be 'conceptual'. If weather if fluid dynamics, and climate is the period average of weather, then there is a straight line link between fluid mechanics and climate. I suspect that the judgment of whether something is conceptual owes more to our own understanding of the minutae. To someone who has never seen a 'plane fly flight must genuinely seem to be a thing of magic, yet to an aeronautical engineer the whole can be resolved and explained with complex equations.

I agree that assessing long term change is complex, but the modeller's response to this is to run a model many times over, using a range of variables and assumptions, so that many possible variations are tested. Usually what then happens is that some middle ground emerges.

In the case of modelling, if some runs showed warming, and others showed cooling, then I would have sympathy with the sceptics, but as it is the models vary only in the extent to which they project warming.

And, lest we forget, the most inconvenient truth of all, nature tells us we're warming. No need for any argument about baselining of satellite temperature data, or UHI effects on measurement sites. The evidence of warming is all around.

...with respect SF, emotional postings about the Maldives do your usually plausible, if occasionally rather hectoring & "superior" postings little justice.

...

So I choose to remain in the sceptic camp. Not a "naysayer" or even worse "denier" (a grossly offensive term particularly given it's past meaning). I will continue to make my own judgements & listen to any sensible argument which is presnted to me, whilst reserving the right to disregard it if I decide, on the balance of probability as I see it .

I know that some people get exasparated by we fence-sitters but healthy scepticism is essential in science (even from non-scientists). For instance I find the theory that we are now cooling based on 1 coolish summer rather silly.

Hope that ramble helps a little.

Dave

It wasn't an 'emotional' posting; it is a sad fact that with rising sea levels land masses will disappear. I'm not saying it will happen, but I accept the science, and see evidence elsewhere to say we're warming.

You're right, science relies on scepticism, but it does so in the same way that the legal system relies of proof. Anyone can sit idly by and have a contrary OPINION: what's impressive, though - at least to this reader - is when somebody has a REASON for that opinion. Many's the bigot with a strongly held opinion; what they tend to lack is sound reason.

[pottyprof]

I agree that assessing long term change is complex, but the modeller's response to this is to run a model many times over, using a range of variables and assumptions, so that many possible variations are tested. Usually what then happens is that some middle ground emerges.

In the case of modelling, if some runs showed warming, and others showed cooling, then I would have sympathy with the sceptics, but as it is the models vary only in the extent to which they project warming.

Climate models are being fed with poor data though SF. Climate model operators are admitting errors. Observations don't match with the forecasts..

Who is the bigot? :wacko:

And, lest we forget, the most inconvenient truth of all, nature tells us we're warming. No need for any argument about baselining of satellite temperature data, or UHI effects on measurement sites. The evidence of warming is all around.

To a point I agree. So why is the above happening?

This is the sort of thing that makes me doubt what I am being told, though the positive drift on the minima temps chart you did does make me think but in a global sense it is only local..

[Admiral_Bobski]

I'm fascinated that you consider the science of climate to be 'conceptual'. If weather if fluid dynamics, and climate is the period average of weather, then there is a straight line link between fluid mechanics and climate. I suspect that the judgment of whether something is conceptual owes more to our own understanding of the minutae. To someone who has never seen a 'plane fly flight must genuinely seem to be a thing of magic, yet to an aeronautical engineer the whole can be resolved and explained with complex equations.

I chose the word "conceptual" to describe climate science because of the way in which it is performed. An observation is made and then a scientist (or team of scientists or whatever) sits down and ponders how and why that observation occurred. They play with ideas, juggle them to fit other observations. Perhaps I should have been done with it and called it a "Theoretical Science", but often the actual meaning of a familiar phrase is overlooked and so I used "conceptual" to make people think about the definition.

The thing is that there are basically two types of science - theoretical and empirical (we'll leave "applied" and "pure" out of the argument for now). Theoretical science is to do with theories - thinking things through and making connections: it can all be done with pen and paper, or computers and models. Empirical science is all about physical experimentation - it usually goes hand-in-hand with theoretical science, because the theoreticians come up with a theory and the empiricists actually test the theory in the real world.

AGW Theory is untested. It has no empirical basis. It exists as a theoretical science. There are no experiments that can be performed to confirm hypotheses, there is no way to test the validity of the concepts involved. Compared to climate science, fluid mechanics is simple.

I agree that assessing long term change is complex, but the modeller's response to this is to run a model many times over, using a range of variables and assumptions, so that many possible variations are tested. Usually what then happens is that some middle ground emerges.

But even computer modelling is an exercise in conceptualism. It is an application of theoretical science, but it still remains in the abstract world of thought. Running a computer model a thousand times doesn't make the results somehow Real.

In the case of modelling, if some runs showed warming, and others showed cooling, then I would have sympathy with the sceptics, but as it is the models vary only in the extent to which they project warming.

Some models do show cooling. Remember the BBC worldwide climate "experiment" a while ago, where everyone downloaded datasets to their computers and ran them through a downloaded model? (I tried but the program knackered my computer up!) Well, there was a wide range of results, with some showing warming, others showing cooling and others showing no appreciable change. I shall see if I can find information out about this that I can link to, but I remember reading posts (I think it may have been on the BBC website) from people summarising the results of their model run.

There was also the claim made in a paper a while back (which I shall try to find and link to), and apparently substantiated by references, that model run results that don't fit certain criteria are disregarded as irrelevant. Or, to put it another way, if the model run shows cooling then it is "obviously" wrong.

And, lest we forget, the most inconvenient truth of all, nature tells us we're warming. No need for any argument about baselining of satellite temperature data, or UHI effects on measurement sites. The evidence of warming is all around.

I shouldn't have to remind you - again - that many skeptics (the rational ones, and myself) don't deny that we are in an apparent warming phase. Earth's climate is in a state of dynamic equilibrium, which means that it constantly fluctuates depending upon what components are in the system at any given time. The nature of fluctuation means that Earth's climate will always be warming or cooling over any given period. This is nothing unusual. Just because it is warming does not mean that we are necessarily having anything to do with it.

CB

[BUSHY]

It wasn't an 'emotional' posting; it is a sad fact that with rising sea levels land masses will disappear. I'm not saying it will happen, but I accept the science, and see evidence elsewhere to say we're warming.

You're right, science relies on scepticism, but it does so in the same way that the legal system relies of proof. Anyone can sit idly by and have a contrary OPINION: what's impressive, though - at least to this reader - is when somebody has a REASON for that opinion. Many's the bigot with a strongly held opinion; what they tend to lack is sound reason.

So if it is a "sad fact" that land masses "will disappear" but one then covers ones behind by stating that you are not saying that it will happen what are you saying exactly?

This is precisely the type of speculative "proof" that kicked off the present climate change panic.

"Many's the bigot with a strongly held opinion; what they tend to lack is sound reason." Indeed you speak true oh wise one. Perhaps do some research into the other side of the argument yourself and see that they also have research and evidence to hand and equally sound reasons for their stance.

[parmenides3]

So if it is a "sad fact" that land masses "will disappear" but one then covers ones behind by stating that you are not saying that it will happen what are you saying exactly?

This is precisely the type of speculative "proof" that kicked off the present climate change panic.

"Many's the bigot with a strongly held opinion; what they tend to lack is sound reason." Indeed you speak true oh wise one. Perhaps do some research into the other side of the argument yourself and see that they also have research and evidence to hand and equally sound reasons for their stance.

Hi, Bushy, and welcome to NW. You've chosen a lively subject to start your posting on!

I don't think it's a good idea to accuse a person of being a bigot, especially if you know very little about them. Do you have any reason to believe that SF hasn't looked at 'both sides' of the argument? No. You suggest that 'the other side of the argument have research and evidence to hand and equally sound reasons for their stance', but this appears to be one of the key problems that's coming up. The 'other side' appears to have evidence and appears to have sound reasons, but the evidence and the reasons have been studied and refuted many times over; but 'the other side' ignores this and continues to present the same arguments. What I would ask you is why you don't trust the experts? What is it you think they have done wrong?

I hope you enjoy being on NW, but please be careful about the words you use...

:)P