Gallup: Global warming skepticism growing in U.S.
A record 41 percent now say news coverage of global warming is exaggerated, while 57 percent say coverage is generally on the mark or underestimated.
A reader of the Mpls Star-Tribune responds:
Its becuse the average joe is wising up.
Noting based on facts. Studies are not facts. And the age difference is that the young are being taught this as a trueth in the schools. Common sense prevails.
posted by MUSKIEDOG
'Studies r not facts?' Is it really better to go with your 'gut instinct' than carefully formulated research with a widely accepted expert consensus?
Sure there's room for a healthy touch of skepticism, but that shouldn't be the basis for outright denial.
Put another way, it's okay to ask another expert's opinion, but if, say 90+% of doctors warned you you're ill, would you still ignore them? (Wait, obese America does that...)
G.W. Bush dumbed downed this country in so many ways. People value their own 'opinion' of things as much as true expertise.
Sure, question everything...but if you can't find an answer then don't insist on having your voice heard anyways.
Update for the skeptics:
I would gladly discuss climate change with you...and I can thoroughly respect the person who is skeptical AND is actively looking for answers. There's not a peep of disdain in the 4th poll question, and it was written with a person like you in mind.
It does take courage to go against the grain, but it also takes intelligence and perseverance to refute a widely-held, well-formed expert conclusion. Einstein did it...but are you or the skeptics anywhere near that level? No disrespect, but are you even a climate scientist or able to judge the credentials of dissenting scientists?
As to the merits of experts. In your profession or in observing wise management, how often does the wise manager assert their own judgment over a better-qualified expert? Note I use the world 'wise' to discriminate against the rampant rough-trod manner of most management which doesn't hesitate to use 'gut instinct' to make decisions. Sure, everyone will be right sometimes (even when their decision methods are wrong).
In this democracy we're all part of the management, and we should not listen to the 1 expert in the meeting that says something we want to hear while ignoring 9 others. How wise is it to go against experts without a strong basis for doing so?
I'm an inventor, so I certainly believe in bucking the 'widely held assessment of experts'. However, I only consider my counter-argument (ie invention) successful when I have something tangible (an equation, a product) to offer as bona fide proof.
What follows is the logical construct and conclusion:
Given the extreme imbalance of scientific opinion favoring the modern theory of climate change, and not being able to discern a rational motive for scientific collusion against a contrary truth, the logical conclusion is that climate change exists and will threaten humanity according to climate scientist's models.