Why Do Contrarians Agree With A Scientific Consensus

Tactic #1: Presenting the public with two “equal” sides and making the scientific community seem divided. The best way that contrarians interfered with a scientific consensus was to generate doubt within the American public by creating a divide between scientists. For example, the harmfulness of acid rain was questioned when Fred Singer1 contradicted the factual evidence of his committee2 by claiming in an official government report that the causes of acid rain were not certain and that a reduction in industrial emissions would not necessarily help solve the problem.3 Both of these statements were in direct contradiction with the international scientific community, which made the consensus seem wavering and the official White House-appointed
They have developed ties to the government through federal agencies, think tanks, and direct contact with congressman, senators, and presidents (7). Secondly, the people who are being targeted by scientists are industries with lots of money6, which have the resources to hire and provide funding to influential people who will defend their products. With strong reputations and money, contrarian scientists are perceived as “experts” with “informed opinions” and thus are granted a false sense of credibility and
Firstly, research results can be complicated and generally confusing to a nonscientist, therefore the public must convey large amounts of trust in scientists. This aids contrarians in creating a credible counterargument and splitting the scientific consensus (Task #1). Most people have no scientific baseline from which to make informed opinions so they gather information from “experts” from both sides of a scientific story. Secondly, science in general is an objective project, scientists stress that their results are always falsifiable and that continued research is necessary to strengthen a scientific finding. For example, Roger Revelle started a talk to the AAAS about climate change by saying, “There is a good but by no means certain chance that the world’s average climate will become significantly warmer during the next century” (191). Contrarians used this ambiguous statement as a way to show that scientists are unsure of their work, when in fact there is no “certain chance” in any scientific trend. In order to remain trustworthy, scientists must always instill a sense of impartiality that is misconstrued as