That 1/4 who don't trust scientists will only become smaller by a few points.

These are the die-hard delusionists.

I, personally, don't waste any energy trying to convince them of anything, as they are unreachable.

Best to redirection society without substantial input from them. If they want to come along, great. If not, too bad. Buh-bye.

Best,

D

Because Americans are poorly educated about science (look at our primary and secondary school systems, plus all of the cultural bias against studying science: "it's hard!"), we are ill-equiped to critically judge what we are being told by government and media--particularly when both sides use 'science' to inform their arguments. We simply don't have the background to evaluate which scientists to believe. So, instead, we contribute to the politicization of science by only agreeing with those scientists who are being used by the politicians we already support. We can look at climatology, health, agriculture...

What bothers me most is that at the collegiate level, most scientists still claim they are impartial researchers--while they themselves attack other scientists for political bias! Basically, if you are funded by industry, then you are biased towards supporting that industry, and it is professional dishonesty to claim otherwise.

Dano,

I still try to convince those I know who don't understand if I think they have a brain in their heads. I've convinced 1 out of 3 by repeatedly explaining the virtues of the peer review process, imperfect as it may be but still far better than listening to someone unreviewed and spewing whatever they feel like. I've also found following the money to be a useful tactic since nearly all websites, including those with .org in their domain, spewing anti-global warming propaganda are funded directly or indirectly by Exxon/Mobil.

Blg,

Excellent point about the science education in this country. I've met many people, especially those a bit younger than myself, that are not even learning what the scientific method is. If you don't understand the means by which science progresses, you begin to think of science as a sort of a faith, like religion. It begins to seem almost like magic.

Perhaps this is why a large number of people are actually capable of believing that Intelligent Design is a theory when it fails to even be a valid hypothesis. Oh yeah, and of course, few people really understand that the word theory when used in the scientific sense means something very very different than when used in common English.

I wonder if calling String Hypothesis a theory prematurely is also contributing to the confusion. Of course, string hypothesis does have some strong reasons to continue research. But, it is far from being at the level of Relativity, Quantum Theory, Evolution, and Natural Selection.

There is no doubt that the science of global warming is mostly conjecture. It is based on incomplete and statistically insignificant information that does not take into account much of the data.

What is needed is a large scale commitment to climate science and computer modeling to eliminate the conjecture. The earlier comment that one side are idiots if they don't believe is harmful and does not advance the discussion.

I discuss this repeatedly on my site http://www.globalwarming-factorfiction.com. Someone can have a belief that they are correct but there is no hard science one way or the other. People need to move to the center on this issue - the extremists and the name callers such as the earlier commentator are screwing this up.

Sean O,

Please read a post I wrote on another mojoblog thread:

http://www.motherjones.com/blue_marble_blog/archives/2007/04/4106_weird_weather_w_8.html

This answers your comment about conjecture quite well. Further, as an engineer by training and a software sales person, I would have to wonder what exactly makes you more knowledgeable about the subject than the hundreds of climate scientists from 113 nations that comprise the IPCC? Remember, as stated in my prior post, referenced above, they work by consensus. It only takes one to disagree to have a statement thrown out. And, many countries in the IPCC have a vested interest in denying global warming. Yet, all of these trained climate scientists working with the data everyday seem to disagree with your statement.

They say with 90% confidence global warming is both real and human caused.

So, how does it feel to be the smarter in a field in which you are not trained than so many top climate scientists from around the world?

personally, I really don't care whether its happening or not. Why do we have to wait until global warming starts occuring before we do anything about it?

I want to live in a world where I can go outside, take a deep breath and not choke down my air. I was recently reading the book 'The man who folded himself' and he travels back in time to thousands of years ago? You know what the first thing was that he did? He went to a beach near where hollywood is today and took in a big breath of fresh air. No smog.

Personally, I don't believe the scientists either. Every single scientist has said something completely and utterly different from all the other scientists.

So... clean up your act. No multi-million or multi-billion dollar company needs to bellyache about spending a little cash to make themselves more green. Greed is killing our precious Earth.

Umm, dude, you just contradicted yourself.

I'm on your side, but, just for future reference.

I cannot help but feel that the American disregard for science takes its roots in the rise of a more widespread religious retardation. More importantly it is related to the lack of emphasis on education. For the Corporate Aristocracy, whose private school education apparently indoctrinates their kids in a way similar to Great Britain's monarchical aristocracy back in the days of empire, the God almighty aspect of Oh Britannia or our present state of yellow ribbons and Homeland fever and apparently this education of the Guardians attempts to put into these youthful minds the idea that they are through God's direct intervention the chosen flock of rulehence the ease by which they can deny their civic responsibilities and condemn the population as a whole to lower and lower standards of living (this lower part of population then cling to meek aspect of the religion) while theirs ever increaseswhich is in fact, at least structurally speaking one of the real true threats to national security. The image of the average American via the TV technique of conditioning has become a difficult sell because the obviousness of ones true futureon averageis becoming more and more difficult to hidethat is a world of temporary existence and zero security, not security from goons in suicide vests but in the sense of a steady form of income because lets face it, the average American has no rights anymore and therefore a key concept of the land of opportunity is no longer credible.

I think that back in the beginning of TV when one looks at I Love Lucy, or say Andy in Maybury, and Lassie, or perhaps even better so as to get a gage on the stereotype of Average or Middle-class one could look at My Three Sons or Leave it to Beaver to see what was I believe an easier and even more realistic sell of the root stereotype image of average Americans because prosperity on average was an increasing function of ones effort, which is rather different than today's sales package because the rule is becoming try as you might you will fail, at least on averagethus it takes two to get what one earned in the 50's and 60's in relative terms (two incomes buy a house as opposed to one 40 years ago.

Nonetheless all of these TV programs no matter what the underlying package being sold, lack the root of a scientific understanding usually cloaking themselves in terms of God's blessingthe hidden message is, no matter what happens it will all work out through God's goodness and appear to be in my opinion the direct products of a centralized politicized propaganda especially when compared to say the kind of inquisitive mind that one finds in the short stories of say Edgar Allan Poe whose ancient writing builds not so much on his poetic gifts, which are indeed great, but rather his incite into the power of logic, human psychology and an understanding of the world in scientific termsPoe's master detectives deduce the riddle of a mystery by seeking out rational explanation through scientific principles (much like Doyle's Sherlock Holmes), which can in themselves be rather mystical if not exciting, though perhaps difficult he seems to point his reader towards the boundary between the mystical and the rational or as Wittgenstein summarized, it is not what we can say about the world that is mystical but rather that it exists. It may well be that science will not aid in the existential crisis of lifewe can't know our origin nor the truth of our afterlife in terms of experienceexcept by means of religious claims hence we are forced to accept a rather absurd existence when it comes to the purpose of humanity but science is certainly a better tool to dealing with our world concretelythe fact that we do existwhile religion tends to deny this truth about life and instead gives a sort of Jack Kerouac, On the Road, Mañana Mañana (in the sense that the afterlife is what its all about) Science apparently refuses to collapse into religious escapism and with hard Zen wake up dummy slap to the cheek, it can say, face it chumpwhy pretend, when this is what we can really come to understandI mean how does a nuclear reactor or open heart surgery size up to a holy book, or some priest chanting Latin gibberish so as to heal you by means of the savior(I do not think exorcism is the plight of masses)? The surgeon's abilities to increase life expectancy, no matter how discontent we are with medicine its input into extending and improving the quality of life for millions people is a facttake away the comfort pills and my God life would be harsh, at least unbearably painful! And it is by refusing to accept the Holy gibberish and saying we can comprehend the world to such a degree that we can alter it physicallybut this ability is dependent upon our making ever refined maps of how the world functionsin the sense of correspondence our scientific language will always remain a language, just as the bible is a language of world (the map), in both cases they are not the world but are descriptionsthough the bible's description is in general not even a description of this world but the next one. Woo-WEE, that is incredible! Whose map yields a better picture? Did the bible predict the New Orleans catastrophe, was it preordained??? Unfortunately the failure of our education system to build a reasonable scientific platform and mode of thinking upon which the average Jack can stand has been suppressed to the point where a repulsive biblical hogwash that reduces women to the rib-bone of Adam is seriously being entertained to be taught side by side with evolution and what is even more important together with basic biologythat is the structure and structures of biological thought in general, its rather ingenious system of classification (much like basic Chemistry ought to get into the minds of a student, the true power of the periodic table, but that means learning the system of the periodic table)I mean should we teach also teach Platonic-Biblical numerology alongside Euclidean Geometryso that kids can appreciate the symbolisms of the Platonic One ancient numeric theology. . .. or perhaps say Ptolemy's astronomyor even better would be his Astrology, which so captivated Rome that it became a threat to the empire and should we not teach biblical alchemy alongside Chemistry and Physicsafter all what is the transformational concept of communion???? Historical science might lead us to contemplate when did this ritual of communion become central to Christianity? Certainly it was long-long-long after the death of Christit is after all a Catholic creation, not a Jesus-Christian creation (I guess one might ask what is the Christian religion really???)

I think a good mandatory course in high school would be a course that follows the guidelines found in say, A. F. Chalmer's book, What is this Thing Called Science? In such a course creation could be presented as a theory and many of its hypothesis examined, and so could Aristotle's world view or even Darwin's.

Nice book jeff,

And, thanks, I'm used to being the one with the longest comments. It's nice not to be for a change. I like your idea of at "What is this Thing Called Science?" class. I think far too many people in this country have no clue.