Scott Pruitt at the EPA

[rangerx]

 

How many peer reviewed publications does the average person read? And how much do they understand? I know I am at a loss for a number of the more technical papers, and I do not consider myself to be particularly stupid.

 

Hence the difference between climate denier and climate skeptic. While many politicians prefer the latter, the former is often true.

 

The skeptic may read even if they don't understand. The denier refuses to read or understand.

 

In fact, many who concur with climate change are skeptical in some or many aspects, thus their research continues.

[Ten oz]

My point is that things that you point out to be obvious can have contra-intruitive answers. For example during the 70s a lot of research had to be done to figure out whether pollution may cause warming or cooling. The tinge, you mentioned, for example is usually caused by particulates which are generally associated with cooling (with some exceptions). Thus if you state something like "just look at the sky" you can get contradicting answers (or in this case illustrating probably the opposite of what you intended, which is a risk of dumbing down info).

 

In other words, it took a lot of data and research things out and at some level you have to trust the scientists that a) the data they have is measure accurately and b) that the resulting conclusions are valid. I am pretty sure that neither you or me could have come to the conclusion without people explaining where the links are and why the assumption of CO2 as the main driver is valid.

 

If you think that it is trivially obvious, I am almost certain (unless you are very familiar with the subject, which I don't know) that you are making simplifications on the matter so that it just appears obvious to you. Unless, of course your point is that climate research is actually a trivial subject and that conclusion are obvious even to laypersons. In that case it would mean that a lot of scientists were wasting their time pointing out the obvious. This goes back to the other argument that people not familiar with a subject may overestimate their familiarity with a subject.

 

Things that are even slightly complicated, such as health or climate effects are can not be understood intuitively and require significant amount of education. Lacking that investment, it is easy to sow doubt. How many peer reviewed publications does the average person read? And how much do they understand? I know I am at a loss for a number of the more technical papers, and I do not consider myself to be particularly stupid. I see a distinct difference between feeling you understand something (e.g. if Bill Nye explains it in a simplified way) to truly understanding (where you can actually make meaningful predictions or extrapolations. I can get a student to memorize and repeat things for an exam within hours. But getting them to understand what i means takes years.

People who deny climate are obviously invested enough to argue against it. Invested enough to invent alternative theories. Scott Pruitt, for example, is head of the EPA. There are teams of scientists who would spend much time as needed answering every doubt he has. Lack of access or the ability to understand research is not what's preventing Mr. Pruitt from understanding climate change. You ask how many people read peer reviewed research; hopefully everyone that invests the time to argue about the topic in the first place.

 

I am an Electrician. It has taken a long time for me to learn all I know about electricity. That said I did not come into the field as a electricty denier because all answers weren't known to me. I didn't start off saying that until I knew everything it was impossible to know anything. I also deal with people on a regular basis who know nothing about electricity yet accept electrical theory implicitly. Insisting an all or nothing attitude toward understanding an issue only ever applies towards those things we pick and choose to apply it towards. But fine lets say a person can't wrap their minds around how CO2 is transparent to solar radiation but opaque to thermal radiation which causes the atmosphere to absorb and re-radiate some of the thermal radiation. Lets say all greenhouse analogies are too complicated despite centuries of humans using greenhouses. The fact the 9 of the 10 hottest years on record have all happened since the millennial is clear evidence of a trend. The decline in global ice, rising ocean temps, and etc are all clear indicators of a changing climate that doesn't require a person to understand chemistry. There are numerous indicators which are plain to see. Couple that with the fact the experts in the field, globally, all agree climate change is real and one must be very stubborn to insist otherwise.

[CharonY]

 

Hence the difference between climate denier and climate skeptic. While many politicians prefer the latter, the former is often true.

 

The skeptic may read even if they don't understand. The denier refuses to read or understand.

 

In fact, many who concur with climate change are skeptical in some or many aspects, thus their research continues.

 

Indeed, but it the current situation was not a passive product. The GOP has actively undermined trust in experts. Part of it started in collusion with certain lobbyists (though depending on sector, there were plenty of democrats involved) but there was also a very strong ideological proportion, mostly with an evangelist basis, that ultimately marginalized the pro-intellectual proportion of the GOP.

[Ten oz]

 

Indeed, but it the current situation was not a passive product. The GOP has actively undermined trust in experts. Part of it started in collusion with certain lobbyists (though depending on sector, there were plenty of democrats involved) but there was also a very strong ideological proportion, mostly with an evangelist basis, that ultimately marginalized the pro-intellectual proportion of the GOP.

GOP leaders preach to the choir. They don't indoctrinate the innocent.

[iNow]

Tell that to the children of Republican parents

[Ten oz]

Tell that to the children of Republican parents

All children are tell about the world by those who raise them. Donald Trump's old man indoctrinated him into the real estate and racism. As an adult Donald Trump is responsible for Donald Trump. Adults who choose to read alternative studies funded by the Koch bros and have Sean Hannity explain Science to them through their TVs are willful idiots. Perhaps raised to be willful idiots but willful idiots all the same. Doesn't take a solid background in meteorology to know Sean Hannity isn't a climate expert. Doesn't take a degree in political science to know a man like Scott Pruitt shouldn't be in charge of an agency he disrespects. It is akin to hiring a vegan to create the menu for a steakhouse franchise.

[CharonY]

I like the US Defence Secretary more than the head of the EPA http://http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/trump-s-defense-chief-cites-climate-change-national-security-challenge