"I am not a scientist, but...".

[Donald Ian Rankin]

One of my colleagues is an extremely serious meteorology geek, and has been since childhood. He thinks that, while the earth is slowly warming, the rate at which it is is significantly lower than most predictions. He has reams of charts that he says support this position, and he clearly understands what he is talking about.

I think that this is entirely legitimate - most of the people who know what they're talking about disagree with him, but some don't, and silencing the ones who don't is a very dangerous road to go down, and he's in a position to have an informed opinion about which are right and which are wrong.



The pope has just weighed in to the climate change debate to say that yes, it's a serious problem that something needs to be done about, despite the fact that he's very much not a climatologist and doesn't know more about the issue than any other lay person.

I think that this is entirely legitimate. He may not understand the science, but he can point to the fact that his opinion is supported by a large majority of those who do. Occasionally a large majority of the experts in a scientific field are wrong, but much more often they're right, and one should definitely bet that way.



What drives me wild with rage is people - especially senior Republican leaders - who say "I am not a scientist, but..." and then proceed to question global warming.

It's entirely reasonable for a minority of experts to claim that the majority of experts is wrong, and set out reasons why. It's not reasonable for a non-expert to assert that a (small) minority of experts is right and the (large) majority is wrong, when they have no way of judging right and wrong in that field except by listening to the experts.

Either make the considerable effort to become an expert in a subject yourself, or defer to the judgement of those who have.

[AgingAmerican]

1. First it was, "Global warming doesn't exist"

Then it was, "The causes are natural". Now it's, "I'm not a scientist".

My prediction is that the next evolution of their rhetoric will be, "Why bother doing anything about it? It's too late to stop it".

No matter what, they will be against doing anything about it.

[amb123]

2. The only correct reply.

"I am not a scientist, but..."

"THEN STFU!!!!!!!"

[Donald Ian Rankin]

6. I would phrase it as "Then listen to those who are". N.T.

[amb123]

9. Yes.

But that would actually make sense.

[hifiguy]

10. Yep. As Neil deGrasse Tyson observed,

the wonderful thing about science is that it works, whether you believe in it or not.

The scientific method may be the single greatest achievement of the human species.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

7. That's not actually true. Comforting, but not true.

A large majority of those who know what they're talking about agree that human contributions to climate change are a serious problem, but within that majority there's a great deal of disagreement about pretty much every detail, and there are some people who definitely aren't nutjobs who outright disagree, albeit not that many.

Using made-up numbers like "97%" (97% of who think what, and how do you know?) doesn't really help. And "ambivalent scientists have no place in this important issue" is the kind of thing conservatives like to accuse liberals of thinking, but thankfully most of us don't.

Incidentally, welcome to DU.

[NBachers]

4. "I'm not a scientist" means "I'm not some weird over-educated liberal egghead- I'm just a common

folksy person tryin' to get along, just like you."

[HassleCat]

5. All beside the point

The climate change debate seems to center on whether or not we can prove it's happening, whether or not we can determine how fast it's happening, and whether or not human activity is a driving force. This debate could go on forever. In the mean time, there are things we could be doing that (1) reduce our carbon footprint, (2) improve our environment and quality of life, (3) provide jobs, and (4) don't cost very much.

[rock]

8. "I am not a scientist, but..."

Yes, being a scientist's butt does not really qualify the repiggies to have an informed opinion, and, of course, being uninformed is their strong point.