It’s interesting that no-one takes issue with scientists’ ability to predict, say, an eclipse…

…No one is saying “ scientists have been wrong before so I’m not going to trust them on this.”

No one is insisting that predicting eclipses is all part of some massive conspiracy. No one is claiming they can predict eclipses better than scientists because of something they read online.

Indeed, everyone seems quite prepared to admit that scientists are competent and have a really good understanding of the physical world; everyone, in fact, implicitly admits that scientists know more about science than they do.

So why is it that on topics like vaccinations, evolution, climate change, etc., suddenly everyone thinks they know more than scientists do?

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Gibbon · 70-79, M

Maybe because of this BS

In the 1970s, several climate-related disasters were predicted to occur by the 2000s, but none materialized:

Global Cooling and Ice Age: Major media outlets like Newsweek (1975) and Time (1974) reported on a supposed "cooling world," predicting a new ice age by 2000. Scientists such as Kenneth Watt claimed temperatures would drop by 11 degrees by the year 2000, leading to severe food shortages and blocked shipping lanes. Reality: Global temperatures have continued to rise since the 1970s, and no ice age occurred.
Oceans Dead by 1980: Paul Ehrlich and others warned that the oceans would be "as dead as Lake Erie" by the 1980s due to pollution and overfishing. Reality: While marine ecosystems face challenges, the oceans have not become universally lifeless, and marine biodiversity remains robust.

Urban Air Unbreathable by 1985: Environmentalists claimed pollution particle clouds would make city air unbreathable, requiring gas masks. Reality: Air quality in most developed nations improved due to regulation and technological advances, contrary to the dire predictions.
75% of Species Extinct by 1995: Biologists like Norman Myers and Sen. Gaylord Nelson predicted that 75% of animal species would be extinct by 1995. Reality: While extinction rates have increased, the planet has not lost three-quarters of its species, and total biomass continues to grow.
These predictions were based on incomplete data and scientific uncertainty of the time. While climate change remains a serious concern today, the specific disasters predicted in the 1970s did not occur as forecast.

MasterLee · 56-60, M

@Gibbon liberals and their money laundering ideas

Gibbon · 70-79, M

@MasterLee and still doing it

Waveney · 41-45, M

@Gibbon LOL.

Of course you're deliberately confusing cherry-picked media headlines with scientific consensus.

It's a fact that in the 1970s the majority of climate papers predicted warming, not an ice age. A few speculative comments amplified by magazines aren't “what scientists said.” The same goes for the other examples, and many were warnings about what would happen without regulation; hence the clean air act and EPA which prevented those outcomes. You know as well as I do that science updates as evidence improves, which is EXACTLYits biggest strength, not a scandal. Pretending uncertainties invalidate modern, data-rich consensus looks as though you don’t actually understand how science works.

But I know you do. You just have nothing.

Waveney · 41-45, M

@Gibbon No, people don't believe because they don't want to. Fact.

Anyone sane knows that scientists' predictions are not set in stone, and are constantly changed and updated.

The fact remains, though is that 99.7% of scientists say that man-made climate change is real, an even higher percentage state that evolution is established fact, and about 98% state that vaccines are safe.

People who disagree do not do so on scientific principles. It's generally political.

So you are dismissed.

Waveney · 41-45, M

@Gibbon No, I haven't creasted a new argument. My argument is the correct one.

The scientific consensus for things that people accept without question, such as eggs raise cholesterol, that depression is caused by a chemical imbalance, and that people have different styles of learning is FAR lower than the consensus for vaccine safety, man-made climate change, and evolution.

So. Why don't people want to believe these three premises that have a FAR higher scientific consensus? Simple. It's politics.