Why do some people believe Global Warming isnt happening?

Question

or more simply... why do people actually believe Ozone depletion never occurs? My guess is that these people live somewhere in the jungle and never got an education. maybe someone who doesnt believe in global warming can asnwer me.

and no.. the government is brainwashing people to believe this. Through studying and science we can put 1+1 together.

the government isnt*

Evidence: trends, comparisons to previous years. "hottest its been in 2000 years"

but my main concern is with those who dont believe in Ozone depletion. i mean how much more obvious can it be when the world bans CFCs because they almost destroyed the ozone. (if you dont know hjow CFCs did this go look it up, its not a theory, its fact)

listen, i know they are different.

i just throwing both of them into the category.

ozone depletion was because of CFCs.

i know...

but global warming is a broader topic which attracts more attention to the answerers. so yes i know the difference.

Answer 1

It's because people don't take the time to consider things that don't instantly affect them. We live in a world of instant gratification, and people only care about the immediate here and now. Forget about the future, right? Science will protect us from whatever harm happens. Besides, we can't have that much of an effect, the world has survived long enough with us on there.

I've heard all of that above. It takes a basic understanding of science to understand why global warming is a problem. Most people envision temperature jumps of 20-30 degrees above normal to be what it would take for a problem to occur. They don't realize what a small change it would take to change the environment. Most people either don't know or don't care how our actions affect the rest of the world because when they go for a drive across town in their air conditioned SUV, they don't smell the CO2 emissions and don't feel any heat difference right away. It's like being out in the sun without sunscreen. You don't realize you're being burned until the damage is done. Unfortunately there are people who still doubt the effectiveness of sunblock too! Hopefully we can educate the younger generations (mine is a good example) and a global paradigm shift can take place in relation to the environment.

Answer 2

What double speak! If you know global warming and ozone depletion are different, then how can you defend asking a question on global warming, that when put "more simply," asks something completely different? That would not be putting something more simply, it would be raising another subject. Rather than simplifying the initial question, introducing a second subject can only be considered to make matters more complicated. Then, in an ironic twist, you insinuate that people with views that differ from yours are uneducated, yet you are the one that has misapplied "more simply" and whose question is rife with punctuation and spelling errors (despite the fact that an automated spelling checker is available).

I suspect that one reason some people don't believe global warming is happening is because people like Al Gore confuse global warming and ozone depletion, as he did while speaking in the Senate, during my first visit to Washington, D. C., which was also my first exposure to Mr. Gore. Many others believe that global warming is happening, but question the cause of the warming, and still others agree on the cause but not on the doomsday scenarios that are painted, and finally, others might even agree on such disastrous outcomes, but still dispute what should be done now. However, since they all hail from the jungle and are lacking the proper schooling, I'm sure your views must be correct.

Answer 3

It's because, unfortunately, it isn't as bad as it should be right now.

Why?

There is another phenomenon at work here called Global Dimming. Even though this is having the opposite effect, it comes from the same source.

The pollution coming from world wide manufacturing is dumping enormous amounts of both greenhouse gasses and particles into the water and air.

These particles act as a shield, reflecting a lot of the sun's energy back into space before it can reach the surface. This may sound like a god-send, but it is having more sinister effects.

The annual rainfall totals all over the world have fallen over the past century. If Global Warming were the only thing affecting us, rain fall would be up. Way up.

In fact, not only would there be higher sea levels, but rain levels would be higher, like they are in America, where these particles never reach the atmosphere.

But in other nations where the pollution laws are non-existent or not enforced, the problem is greater. And in these areas, temperatures are increasing only about half a degree per decade, a mere fraction of what they would be if these particles were not in the air.

This is what has caused all the famines in Africa. The particles fill the air just off the coast of Africa, keeping the Atlantic cooler than in previous generations. There for the oceans can not support the monsoons that move in from southern Africa, and do not move north like they should.

They still don't.

That isn't the only problem. If these countries were to start enforcing these pollution laws, and cut down the number of particles released into the atmosphere, Global Warming would hit full force with no warning.

We would see devastating storms, massive fish kills, whole ecosystems dying out-right, and people starving because there is nothing to eat.

So you see the pickle we have gotten ourselves into. And even if we correct one problem, we have the other to contend with.

Were damned if we do, and damned if we don't.

Bummer.

Answer 4

There are two forces at work I think.

The first is that the ecology movement routinely overplays its hand. I know first hand of cases where early documents on global warming were changed from saying "there is no convincing evidence" to "there is convinving evidence". And there is not doubt that the movement has cried wolf - I think they predicted the end of the world some time ago.

This is not to say that the problem is not real - it is now pretty universally accepted that it is (global warming - ozone is a done deal, there is no longer doubt). But scare mongering - while it may garner headlines - damages credibility, to the point that it can actually be undermined.

The second is that it is inconvenient. We tend to ignore things that are inconvenient. We even make things up about them. Taking people into slavery was clearly evil. So the church and the nobility decided back people were, well, not people. This saved them money, but damaged us all.

Our society is based on oil. It is hard to imagineit surviving without radical change if oil is taken out of the equation. and half of the world's total oil resource is still there to be exploited - at ever increasing prices.

Answer 5

The best way to show your own ignorance is to call someone else stupid or tell how smart you are. This section of Yahoo is called ANSWERS. It is not called MAKE UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS.

The reason some people do not believe in global warming is because the scientists are not sure it truly exists. I just finished reading several texts for environmental engineering. While each mentioned that there is a belief global warming might be occurring, none stated it as a fact. On the other hand all of them that mentioned ozone depletion stated it as a fact. None only was stated as fact, the chemical equations showing how it work were also presented.

The popular media is not scientists; Al Gore is a politician not a scientist. There have been huge temperature fluctuations in the history of the earth. These fluctuations range from ice age to temperatures hotter than we have now. Last I heard, the proponents of global warming are claiming an average temperature rise of a fraction of one degree.

I believe there is a distinct possibility of global warming taking place. I believe we need to make major changes in our energy policies. Unfortunately, we have an administration that is willing to spend a billion dollars a week to perpetuate the old energy paradigm. What we have spent on the war in Iraq would have taken us a long way toward achieving energy independence through developing our wind and solar infrastructure. All I can see as a path to solving this is for ordinary citizens to take numerous small steps to work toward sustainable energy solutions. Short term we need to have auto makers sell cars that are flex fuel compatible and BioDiesel compatible. Long term, we need to make risky, perhaps not profitable investments in all of the alternative energy arenas.

Be very caution of your sources of information. Television and newspapers make the money with "if it bleeds, it leads." If the blood is the end of the earth, they will use it. Thoroughly research your topics before you go around calling anyone who does not share your opinion "stupid." If they are 20 year scientist and you just got your opinion from last night's television show, well, you may not be so "smart."

Answer 6

Because some people actually think and read up on thing and don't take some bone-headed celebrity's word on things but maybe you need to hear what the prominent global warming advocate, co-founder of the Climate Project at the National Center for Atmosphereic Reseach (NCAR)in Boulder Colo., and editor in chief of the journal 'Climate Change' Dr. Stephen Scheider, said about it in Discover Magazine Oct 1989 issue, " Scientists are bound to the scienfiic metod, in effect to tell the truth and nothing but -- which includes all the doubts , the caveats, the ifs, ands, buts. This can lead scientistsinto a double ethical bind" WHy? "Because we are not just scientists but human beings as well. ANd like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in thia context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disasterous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the publics' imagination. That, of course entails getting loads os media coverage. So we have to offer scary scenarios, make simplified, drastic statements, and make littla mention of any dougts we might have... Easch of us has to decide what the rifgt balance is between beung effective and being HONEST. I hope that means being both." SO they exaggerate scientific evidence and the risks of catastrophic climate change in the media in order to advance a POLITCAL agenda. Senator Jim Wirth (Dem. Colo.) said in 1990 "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing - interms of ECONOMIC policy and environmental policy"

Answer 7

There are lots of reasons someone might not believe global warming is real.

One reason is that acknowledging the problem means needing to do something about it. This makes people reluctant to see the problem.

Another reason is that temperatures don't go up or down at a nice steady constant rate. The temperature charts have lots of short term day to day up and down jags that can hide the overall trend if you don't want to see it.

Yet another reason is that our news media have a tradition of looking for and reporting two sides to every story. So if there is an interview with somebody pointing out global warming, an opposing viewpoint is felt to be needed as a matter of course. This gives credibility to some pretty faulty science.

Also a lot of political commentary today is done with parody and satire that attacks people and their style or personalities more than looking at the issues. By attacking the image of people who believe in global warming and making them seem ridiculous, it is possible to discredit the message without ever having to truly examine that message.

Answer 8

>FYI Ozone depletion and global warming are two separate problems.

Gee, finally someone points out how wrong the original question is. The ozone hole is NOT related to global warming and greenhouse gases at all.

So, it is quite laughable that the original question is full of myths.

We have two separate issues here:

The ozone hole – this is supposed created by the use of products with chlorine. Mainly CFC’s.

CFC’s USED to be the primary ingredient in aerosol (spay) cans for paint, or hair spray products. CFC’s were also used in the creating of foam products. In addition, the other main use of CFC was for refrigeration. (that includes air conditioning for cars and homes also). Most Counties have banned the use of Choloro fluorcarbons, or are in the process of doing so.

The 2nd issue is green house gases, and global warming. (Again, a separate issue from the ozone hole and the supposed use of CFC’s that are destroying ozone).

Lets tackle the first issue:

The “supposed” culprit in the ozone hole is of course CFS’s. The main evil part in CFC’s that destroys the ozone is the chlorine. The problem is what amounts of chlorine is produced by CFC’s and that of nature? What % of chlorine is released into the atmosphere by man?

Answer: A VERY SMALL amount. You can all recall your basic high school chemistry, and note that a major component of Salt is of course Chlorine. In fact, the chemical formula of Salt is Sodium chloride. It turns out that from just evaporation of salt water from the ocean, each year, nature PRODUCES 600 TIMES that of mans output. That means in two years, nature has produced 1200 years worth of mans output of chlorine. We only been industrially and using CFC’s for about 60 years. As I mentioned, in just 5 years, evaporation from the ocean and other sources of nature will in a 5 year period is 5 x 600.

5 years x 600 = 3,000 years of output. So, to think that mans output of chlorine is responsible for the ozone hole is bordering on the hysterically funny. It is complete stupid that mans output caused the ozone hole.

Why then was the cheap and low cost CFC’s banned? The replacements for CFC’s are actually quite toxic, and are WORSE OF an environmental issue!! And, the new replacements for CFC’s are also VERY EXPENSIVE. (to handle those new replacments is also diffcilt.....CFC's were quite inhert).

The answer is very simple: The major chemical companies around the world can’t make money off of CFC’s anymore, but, industry sure can make money off of the new expensive replacements. (with many of the new CFC replacements, the patient and manufacturing rights have NOT expired either!!).

So, a lot of money is to be made here.

Regardless, nature is beating us by 600 years to one of our years for chlorine output. Given these numbers, it VERY unlikely that CFC’s are responsible for the ozone hole at all. So it is not question is there a hole, but is man causing the hole, and on that point, there is no science that shows this right now. Again, NO SCIENCE shows that man has cause the ozone hole.

The 2nd part of this question was about greenhouse gases. Well, the problem is not CO2, but water vapor. Water vapor is the NUMBER ONE greenhouse gas. When you include the latent heat abilities of water, it makes up 97% of the air’s ability to hold heat.

In other words, any time a person talks about greenhouse gases, and forgets to mention the NUMBER ONE greenhouse gas called water vapor; you have to ask if the person is being honest with you? (remmeber, anyone who forgets the gas called water vapor in ANY DEBATE is likey dishonest).

With water vapor representing 97% of the greenhouse effect, then that leaves ONLY 3% left over. Of that 3%, we have volcanoes, methane, sulfur, cows eating grass, decay of organic stuff etc. And, in that 3%, we also have mans output of CO2. So, of that 3%, 99% of it is NATURE and NOT from mans output.

So, again, it is not C02 that is the major global warming gas, but water vapor!!!

Water is the one thing we would have to change to effect global warming!!! Further, CO2 is certainly not health hazard, or pollution. (hum, gee, what about the CO2 in our pop….is that going to be banned next?).

So, it is certainly NOT mans output of C02 is that responsible for global warming. When you run the numbers, these people like Al Gore look absolute stupid. 5, or 6 years ago, the Kyoto could be sold to the public.

Now that we have internet, and the rise of the internet in the last 5 years means that this type of garbage cannot be sold to the public. If global warming was good science, then the MORE YOU study it, the MORE IT SHOULD MAKE sense. The problem is that the more you study global warming, the more it becomes obvious it is a simple lie. Global warming is all about a way to tax rich counties and give the money to poor counties.

With the internet, more and more people are learning this, and that is why now Kyoto is in such trouble. Everyday the support drops more and more.

This Al Gore tour is a last gasp attempt to sell the public that is becoming MORE AND MORE educated as to how foolish this global warming is.

We may have a world warming trend right now, but there is NO evidence that proves in any way that man’s output of CO2 is the cause. You CAN NOT show any cause and effect.

This, the so called consensus about global warming is now collapsing due to the fact that simple PR stuff from governments can’t be sold to the public because we now have the internet.

Answer 9

FYI Ozone depletion and global warming are two separate problems.

Why do dorks try to claim it's not happening? There are four possible reasons: Stupidity, Ignorance, Laziness, Evil.
1) They are stupid and believe someone who has lied to them.
2) They are ignorant but also smart enough to think they can figure it out without facts - of course they are wrong.
3) They are too lazy to do any research to find out the truth so they believe someone who has lied to them.
4) They are evil, because they know the truth but for personal gain have decided to lie about it. Folks like oil company executives, the fake scientists they have paid off, and politicians like Bush and Cheney who they have bribed with campaign contributions.

Answer 10

Actually, the debate is not that Global Warming is happening, but whether it is man caused or natural. People like Al Gore wants to scare people to put even tougher controls on business. To me, it seems that the same people who complain about man caused global warming also are against all forms of energy. I have heard of environmentalists complain about wind power because of the loss of birds that fly near them. The also do not want any other form that might harm the environment and the ones that they like require more energy to make than we would get out of it such as bio fuels and hydrogen vehicles. We have not been able to make something out of nothing except with nuclear fission which is a safe energy source.