We should admit that we know less, considerably less, than the typically quoted "expert" sources, some corrupted by money, claim they know, about the global warming issue. The end. I refuse to support spending trillions on a "problem" that is so poorly defined by anything tangible really. We need to find a way to research this, where the deck is not stacked.
Of course, isn't part of the problem that many laymen disagree with the findings of experts, are convinced that they know better, and will be inclined to believe that - in some way or another - experts should not be trusted regardless of whether that would actually be the rational thing to do? It is not uncommon especially with discussing a subject with conspiracy theorists for them to brush off challenges to their views and lean on sources even less reliable than the ones they attack for being biased or otherwise flawed. That's not to say experts are always right or people should not ask difficult questions, but all too often folks seem to assume their good 'ole "common sense" and gut checks trump all.
On an issue like climate change I have an extremely difficult time finding objective answers to my questions. A lot of people have strong opinions. Some even have sources to cite. Yet I imagine quite a few make up their minds prior to doing any research at all, and then leap at whatever reinforcing sources they can find. For someone like me with scarcely any education in physical sciences, how am I to make heads or tails of hundreds of pages of findings on the subject? Are people who haven't the time to learn how to properly digest such things doomed to either have faith in researchers whose methods and work ethics are presumed to be good or succumb to cynicism, assuming the researchers are wrong or even lying to us no matter how compelling an argument they might try to make? Is there middle ground?
Perhaps this is drifting off topic somewhat but it does make me curious.
