The Public's ebbing trust in complex science

[Razgovory]

You might want to pick up reading instead of relying on blind faith.  Who knows, you might learn something.  Then again just going with the flow is so much easier, no need to examine facts, no need to challenge authority.

http://www.nationalreview.com/

Your first, last, and only stop for reading facts and not relying on blind faith.

More like the famous, right-wing Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chinese
Or Der Spiegel http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,674087,00.html
Or the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/dailypolitics/andrewneil/2010/01/the_dam_is_cracking.html
Or the Tines of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Ramesh-turns-heat-on-Pachauri-over-glacier-melt-scare/articleshow/5474586.cms
Or the Times of London http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece
Or the Daily Telegraph http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
The UK Spectator http://www.spectator.co.uk/print/politics/all/5749853/the-global-warming-guerrillas.thtml

etc, etc.  Only the cool-aid drinkers still buy the global warming hoax.

Hans, when are you going to be able to tell the difference between editorials and facts?

[crazy canuck]

Digging a little deeper in the sources for the editorials Hans has cited we find this little ditty referring to climate change science.

"It's the new religion for urban populations which have lost their faith in Christianity."

and then this

"Besides which, Australia's economy is peculiarly vulnerable to the effects of climate change alarmism. 'Though we have 40 per cent of the world's uranium, we don't have nuclear energy. We're reliant mainly on bucketloads of cheap coal. Eighty per cent of our electricity is coal-generated and clustered around our coalfields are our aluminium producers. The very last thing the Australian economy needs is the cap and trade legislation being proposed by Kevin Rudd. If it gets passed, the country will go broke."

btw the scientist in question is an Aussie.  From the rest of the article its not that he can disprove the global warming theory its just that he doest trust the data.  Given his particular bias - both religous and economic -  I am not sure anyone should trust his assertions of misgivings.

The article in question is here.  http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/3755623/meet-the-man-who-has-exposed-the-great-climate-change-con-trick.thtml

[The Larch]

Going on a slight tangent, I'd say that the general public's insufficient understanding of science make them distrust more than just climate change. The other main victim of this is genetic engineering and all that stems from it, such as stem cell research, GM foodstuffs, biomedicine, etc. Lots of issues overlap, anti intelectualism, the politization of science, conspiracy theories, and the like.

[Tamas]

You guys answered Tim's original question much better than you think: at this point, it is impossible to be reasonable on the man-made global warming topic because it has become full of politics.

First the pro-crowd gained the political upper hand and for some time used it to totally silence the sceptics. Still after recent controversies, voiceing concerns equals heresy. Having invested so many "street cred" and money on the issue, they obviously felt forced to make the issue as dramatic and urgent as possible. Hence the tampering with data, which luckily got out, so the sceptics got some room to breath. Of course, this in turn also gave an opportunity for the politial groups opposing those supporting the pro scientists, to run in all guns blazing, and declare that thinking there is global warming is heresy.

Judging by the leaked e-mails, and other stuff like their retreat on the ice melting issue on the UN report, probably the truth is somewhere in the middle, but in our days political and cultural climate, the "middle" is an impossible position to maintain. You must take a side and shout away or you are silenced.

[Faeelin]

Eh, it's not just global warming. Look at how Nevadans freaked out over Yucca Mountain.

[Tamas]

Oh and as much as I hate the anti-genetics and anti-tech crowd, anti-man-made-global-warming-ism is not part of that. The radical greens are the anti-tech crowd in this case.

[Viking]

It's correct that people don't understand science. No need for the adjective "complex". It doesn't help that anti-science and luddite buffoons use the real contest and conflict of science to declaim the whole thing bunk and then create a false dichotomy to claim whatever the opposite of science says is true.

Judging by the 3 (out of tens of thousands) emails about frustration with luddites and suggestions on how to process data nothing should be inferred other than some scientists are frustrated with luddites and need suggestions on how to process data (the "trick" thing).

The IPCC and glaciers? WTF. It's conclusions do not require the glacier data. It's scientists (not climate sceptics) who found the glacier error. But more importantly, the fact that an error was found and corrected is not an argument for discarding the corrected conclusion.

[Razgovory]

It's less about politics then it is about economics.  Would people care if it didn't have an economic impact? 

[Ed Anger]

I'm not going to sort my trash.

[The Minsky Moment]

You guys answered Tim's original question much better than you think: at this point, it is impossible to be reasonable on the man-made global warming topic because it has become full of politics.

Of course it is possible to be reasonable.  Many people apparently choose not to be, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible.

[crazy canuck]

I'm not going to sort my trash.

You dont sort your trash.  You sort your recycling.

[Ed Anger]

I'm not going to sort my trash.

You dont sort your trash.  You sort your recycling.

I don't do that either. I used my recycling bin as a snow brick maker. 

Forts win wars.

[Admiral Yi]

It's less about politics then it is about economics.  Would people care if it didn't have an economic impact?

I think so.  There is a large and growing number of people out there for whom believing conspiracy theories is its own reward.

[The Larch]

Oh and as much as I hate the anti-genetics and anti-tech crowd, anti-man-made-global-warming-ism is not part of that. The radical greens are the anti-tech crowd in this case.

It's exactly the same thing, only coming from different crowds.

[Tamas]

Oh and as much as I hate the anti-genetics and anti-tech crowd, anti-man-made-global-warming-ism is not part of that. The radical greens are the anti-tech crowd in this case.

It's exactly the same thing, only coming from different crowds.

Well, maybe, but I am not sure. "genetic engineering is teh evöl, stay with the old ways" is cleary ludditism. "let the industry roam, fuck nature" is not nearly the same thing.