That's complete bullshit. What's causing the distrust is lobbying by some of the largest industries in the world and major media companies making money hand over fist selling lies.
The fact that scientists disagree on details or some might hedge what they say so folks don't get the wrong idea I imagine has little to no ill effect in comparison.
No. Unless it was lobbyists that made my history books in school.
Still whenever I tried in the past to get an answer to why Greenland was so warm 1000 years ago I get labeled a shill.
It is somewhat maddening and absolutely not something that helps trust.
Same goes with how it is impossible to get raw numbers in any discussion.
probably a change in the strength of north atlantic thermohaline circulation.
that was a regional shift in local climate and not due to worldwide climate change. it isn't reflected in global proxies like antarctic ice cores.
hurricane activity in the atlantic basin increased, and its likely that la nina (cool) conditions persisted across the pacific.
it also may have caused draught that caused the collapse of the Maya civilization.
you probably get labelled a shill because you use it to cast doubt on anthropogenic causes of climate change and you argue that warmer temperatures benefited northern europe, while ignoring the drought and destruction of a civilization in central america.
Ironically you perfectly prove my point: it is impossible to seek information in progressive circles without getting to know the branding iron.
The other side welcomes everyone and presents their ideas politely.
And you wonder why people listen to them?
I'll spell it out: one side is possibly right but rather nasty if you don't agree immediately, the other is nice and patient even if they are wrong.
For me a big part of it comes from frustration that I (we, science) know the answer to things, and someone refuses to accept it.
We don't know everything of course. And most of the time the excuses use are illogical, paradoxical, or easily disproven, and yet the person refuses to understand that theatre wrong. Hence frustration.
I never feel frustrated if my child doesn't understand something or refuses to, because she's a child. But treating adults like children is condescending, hence frustration.
> The other side welcomes everyone and presents their ideas politely.
This is a huge problem. It's just like how people selling snake oil are fantastic listeners and make people feel welcomed and understood, just to sell them literal water disguised as medicine.
We are hardwired to trust nice people over logic of facts :/
I see it.
Just remember that each time you brand someone asking questions to you, you almost definitely won't win that person and there is a fair chance you drive them away.
Edit: Also, sometimes, like with the lab leak theory it turns out the questions weren't crackpot after all. I've seen no apologies from anyone over that either so I guess a fair number of those have learned a lesson too about who to talk to.
Hah my wife has been shoving off the lab leak thing at me, she said it was like that and I said nah at the beginning of the pandemic.
Our newspapers tell us the same, as well as reporting different opinions during the whole thing. We recognize opinion as opinion, not propaganda or fact.
Why are everyone on the net seemingly living with insane politics and media? And what is so hard about saying the words: "I don't know, yet.."
To me that seems to be a core problem in public discourse today. People have been conditioned by modernity to receive instant gratification. In the realm of information they want to know what is factual and what is not even when it is too early to draw conclusions. One can also see this in the whole Trump Russia scandal and before that the Iraq WMD fiasco. There was no "there" there (a phrase I hate btw.) But never the less people were led to believe there was by the manufacturers of "facts."
Online material we read like facts, even when it's opinion, we rarely check dates and don't think of the content as dated. Also anyone can publish anything, including deceptive texts, as the barrier to entry is much lower. The cost is next to free.
People also engage more actively with online material, internalizing anything, even when it's garbage and transitory.
As has been said here with social media, there's lack of quality controls, but also distrust in quality measures.
Somehow, I'm not convinced all the online material is worth reading, but the trick is how to make sure people engage in quality without reducing freedom and differing opinions.
Edit: unless of course if they have a time machine, but in that case we have a bigger problem.
This used to be true. In 1995 this was definitely true. But today it just isn't. Look at the primary promulgators of vaccine misinformation. They're not lobbyists for anyone, they're just amateurs who think they're smarter than they are.
You can point to plenty of similar stuff with republican partisans and Fox.
Both should be abhorrent equally to people who lean democrat as republican.
So who do you believe? For any sensible person the answer is obviously neither.
How about Fauci or the CDC?
The Street: So, why weren't we told to wear masks in the beginning?
Fauci: "Well, the reason for that is that we were concerned the public health community, and many people were saying this, were concerned that it was at a time when personal protective equipment, including the N95 masks and the surgical masks, were in very short supply. And we wanted to make sure that the people namely, the health care workers, who were brave enough to put themselves in a harm way, to take care of people who you know were infected with the coronavirus and the danger of them getting infected." [1]
If you believe Fauci, he lied, he said so himself. (For what he thought was the greater good, sure. It's very understandable and human error.) And in so doing undermined the trust there too pretty badly. Which comes at great cost.
Tell the truth people. Warts and all. Even if it provides some small amount of short term ammunition to liars, thieves, confidence tricksters and so on because the truth is the only weapon that works long-term. We see the consequences of not respecting that right now and its very worrying.
[1] https://www.thestreet.com/video/dr-fauci-masks-changing-dire...
Stop making excuses for it no matter who does it. It's wrong on Fox, on CNN, by Republican partisans, by Democrat partisans. It's equally wrong when done for ulterior motive by non-partisans.
Considering that climate scientists have seen their emails hacked, quote-mined, and used to produce climate FUD (not to mention global harassment campaign), I have to say nah, not really.
https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2019/nov/09/climateg...
I mean every year we keep pumping more carbon into the atmosphere, but unless biomass turns into coal, it is just a temporary buffer for carbon, right?
The IPCC predicts by 2100 the land is going to convert into a net source rather than sink of carbon -- so the positive feedback loops will exceed the negative feedback stabilizers.
The increase in biomass also comes at a decrease in nutrient density as well, so its not like this is magic sauce for croplands.
Thinking that controlling the narrative and lying for the “greater good” is corruption.
It is very easy to generate an opposition movement by turning a reason-driven effort into moral drum beating nonsense.
"Trust the science, and by the way, 'the science' won't ever publish real evidence that contradicts its beliefs" is why you get deniers that have very legitimate reasons to doubt people who tell them what's real and what isn't.
How do we fix this? Why is society having such a hard time processing things that aren't simple?
You simply have to stop optimizing for the lowest common denominator and push things out that you think some people won't understand.
Small children are perfectly capable of understanding very complex things, just ask a kid about pokemon or whatever kids are into these days and you'll be able to find huge pockets of complexity all over the place.
Treat people like they're dumb and can't understand anything that doesn't fit into a headline though... and they'll get accustomed to that.
The biggest targets should be news room editors trying to sell ads.
Is there anything else you're intentionally keeping quiet about?
That is going to backfire terribly on you. The only thing worse than sharing information that you deem "unhelpful" is being caught hiding it.
These are reports based on peer-reviewed scientific papers, that yes sometimes have to discount and dispute eachother. The presence of conflicting information does not change the overall picture of greenhouse gases like CO2 which can be tested in any simple lab. It does not change how solar input has increased over millions of years, making the planet much more sensitive to warming due to greenhouse effects.
Demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ
If you put water on the stove and max the temperature, it is not hard to predict you don't want to keep your hand in that water for too long.
This is not about discounting or disputing information, this is about intentionally hiding it.
"Those of us who understand these issues aren't going out of our way to provide an excuse for dissonance to the masses or worse, easily misrepresented ammunition for the talking heads."
They clearly stated they are involved in research and are actively not sharing information.
Anyways, no poster or researcher ever owed you anything. If you want information, you have the responsibility to seek it out yourself. What the poster thinks about could very well be false and unverified information, so may not be the gold you seek.
When seeking knowledge about this, dismissing peer-reviewed research and experts would lean heavily over to Dunning-Kruger effect. Why would so many researchers be so stupid as to overlook simple effects, or collaborate in some elaborate scheme. After so many decades of verified results, I would rather ask who are feeding people misinformation and discounting credible research without substantial proof and debunked claims [1]? I would be very sceptical of those who seek to distract for personal gain. People are also inclined to take in information that is somehow reassuring, moreso than factual.
There are research I've been following for many years, ie. Henrik Svensmark's papers looked promising. But the research don't explain the added accumulating warming after 1930's and the funding and reasoning is looking suspect and fail to be leading. It would be nice though, if some of the results can be shown to dampen effects of CO2.
But I'm no expert either, so will have to trust the consensus of those who work with this deeply in the field, though also read other sources. Both with pinches of salt.
Anyways, my main point is, please don't take random online posts too seriously as to think they represent the scope of credible researcher work.