Why are skeptics so skeptical?
The reason most AGW skeptics are so skeptical is political, not scientific. In the US, environmental issues are considered by many on the right to be a “Democratic” political point. Rush Limbaugh, for example, has made a career of railing against what he calls “environmental wackos.” For a certain class of low-information voter, that’s all they need to know: environmentalism = Democratic Party = wrong. No thought required. James Inhofe, US Senator from Oklahoma, falls squarely into this class. Inhofe isn’t a scientist, but that doesn’t prevent him from using his official Senate website (and his Commerce Committee Chairmanship, when he was in the majority) for campaigning against climate change issues and the urgent need to act. The strategy is simple: pretend that there is a scientific debate, even though there isn’t. Then you can dither away doing nothing “until the evidence is in.” Of course, the political goal IS to do nothing; so by manufacturing a nonexistant “debate,” you win by
An offshoot of this question might be: why does skepticism exist at all? Depending on your beliefs, it was because Adam and Eve ate from the wrong tree. Or we just evolved to not believe first impressions. Or, because past experience has taught us that just because experts proclaim something to be true and unquestionable, sometimes it needs to be questioned, and it is found to be false. In this instance of climate change, I blame the media overload of 24 hour news channels. I have no blame towards the parade of experts on both sides of this issue – all life is a matter of perception. Melting ice in Greenland is seen as a catastrophe to those in America, it is seen as great news to people living in Greenland. Where the problem with news reporting facts about climate change stems from can be summed up in two words: red wine. One day, red wine is bad for you. Then the next day it is good for you. The next week, it is bad for your liver so stop drinking, later it is good for your heart, dr
Deciding that we don’t know enough to take action to mitigate global warming is a crticial decision. Deciding to ignore and reject the conclusions of the experts who know a whole lot more than you do about the subject is a critical decision. It’s not that ‘skeptics’ don’t make critical decisions, it’s that they make poor decisions.
Why are skeptics so skeptical? Maybe it’s because you’re making a decision on AGW without having all the necessary climate science knowledge. Throughout history, people have looked to experts when their knowledge is lacking, with the exception of climate change. That indicates people are using other than critical thinking.
