Why do people make up facts to prove that global warming is not real?

Question

Global warming has been proven by scientists who spend their lives doing research in the field. There is a general agreement among the scientific community that the world is taking a turn for the worse, and you will not find any reputable scientist in the field who disagrees. These are the smartest people in the world, and they all agree.

So why do ordinary people with no scientific background (except for maybe taking Jr. High Biology) claim to know everything there is to know about global warming? Why do they insist on making up facts and statistics? I recall someone on Fox News making fun of Stephen Hawking for saying that global warming would eventually end our existence on Earth. In essence, he was saying that Stephen Hawking was dumb.

Why does this stuff get politicized? Why is it so important to so many people that the overall health of the planet and ecosystem should be fully ignored?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Everything you need to know about Global warming.

Human beings are the cause for global warming. There is no reasonable debate about that. I just don't see why it's so hard for some people to believe that 6 billion human beings could actually make an impact on the planet. Maybe some people just live in seclusion. I have been to developing countries, and there is no such thing as fresh air or blue skies in those places. There is nothing but smog. Spew that stuff into the air over the course of a century and you can imagine that it would make some difference.

Answer 1

why do poeple make up facts to proof the global warming is the only one factor of climat change?

Answer 2

First of all, Dav, I would like to know what credentials you posses to be able to claim that the studies being published are all garbage. True, some studies are weak and make stretches to get to the conclusion they are trying to prove; however, MOST STUDIES ARE ACCURATE AND FOLLOW THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Have you taken any scientific research classes? If you had you would know that research has to be designed first, which is based on the scientific method. Then once the study is carried out and the report is written, it has to be peer reviewed before it can be published. It is reviewed by other scientists who have nothing to do with the study nor do they have anything to gain by falsifying the results. They look at how the study was designed, carried out, evaluated (i.e. statistics), and reported. in my professional opinion, as a biologist, the only people who are in a position to criticize scientists are other scientists.

Now, on to the question at hand. I'm not going to say that the world is not going through a warming phase, but I will say that it is a natural occurrence. This is why we had ice ages. The earth warms and cools gradually over time. I agree with you though, I wish people who are just in it for political gain would not add to the amount of people in this country who are misinformed and act accordingly.

Answer 3

There are interests in this world who believe that the tackling global warming will hurt their financial interests. Such as the oil industry, the car industry, the energy industry. What they fail to see is that tackling this problem will create more opportunities. The world is constantly evolving. We moved from the horse and cart age into the industrial age. Now it is time to move from this industrial age which is causing us so many problems to the post industrial age where we find cleaner ways of creating energy, cleaner means of transport, fly less, grow our own food locally again, lead more self sufficient and fulfilling lives. It is NOT a step backward but a step forward. Some industries will lose out financially but other industries will find great opportunities and an environment to flourish. We just have to take control of our future and stop letting governments, industries and the media hold us back. The future belongs to us all.

Answer 4

My goodness, a question with good spelling, punctuation and grammar. I am shocked and grateful to see your question on this forum. It even has logic and develops a thought. Thank you.

Well... people tend to begin with what they believe, and then look for information to prove their beliefs. Opposing views always have and probably always will be disregarded as using inferior data and methodology, by all involved in a disagreement. And the credentials of each side of an argument have been and always will be disputed by the other side of the issue. That is the nature of human beings.

As for science.... well as one professor of advanced statistics and research methods once said in a graduate class, science depends on the use of the scientific method. Since researchers don't use the scientific method, there is no such thing as science. Science will only exist when researchers become well enough informed to apply the scientific method, and the researchers stop mistaking technology and the use of computers for having completed the requirements to qualify their studies as science.

If you look closely at what is now being published, the poor methodology used, the wrong statistics used, what is published is not science, it is garbage.

Answer 5

For the same reason you so fervently believe it is real. There is credible evidence on both sides, but you seldom see much news about the science that doesn't support global warming. That is because most of the news media believes as strongly as you in the absolute proof of global warming. (And also because "there is no threat to mankind" isn't news.)

There are large numbers of scientists -- real, honest-to-goodness, peer-reviewed, working scientists -- whose data doesn't support the view that (a) global warming is as bad as has been forecast, and (b) that we can clearly link all of the climate change to human influences.

One of the biggest problems in this discussion has been the disinformation trumpeted by advocates on BOTH sides of the debate; (you see about as much bad science "news" coming from the environmental lobby as you do from industry; I don't necessarily trust either side). They both try to make the issue seem much more simple than it really is.

Here are some basic facts, starting with the one that everyone seems to agree is true: The Earth is warming. Every set to thermometers says that; the weather stations, the balloons and the satellites all show warming, although in slightly different amounts. (You won't see much about that on the pro-industry, "think tank" websites.)

The Devil is in the details. You read a lot about the Arctic ice melting, but you ought to know that the data has only a couple of data points so it isn't really reliable. You read a lot about the Antarctic calving giant icebergs, but we don't know how much that happened in the past, and there is reliable evidence that shows the Antarctic is cooling and the ice cap is growing.

We also don't know how much of what we see today is natural. We do know that glaciers and ice have been melting, and sea levels have been rising for most of the past 20,000 years. Ice caps have disappeared at the end of every known ice age. It is a natural thing. You won't see much about that on many eco-websites because it doesn't support their political agenda.

This stuff gets politicized because there are literally tens or hundreds of billions of dollars at stake. But the stake is equally high for eco-advocacy groups that have used global warming as the gloom and doom disaster on the horizon to raise millions of dollars in donations.

Answer 6

Some people suck. Some have selfish interests to serve. Some people can't help but take the opposing view just to argue. And some people are convinced they are right and other people are wrong.

Answer 7

they are trying their best to be as ignorant as possible...ignorance is bliss...

I don't know where we get it, but my son and I always say, "scientists are stupid" when we see weird things...we know we are being stupid ourselves (our own little private joke)...it's just our way of saying we don't get it.....but a lot of people are saying "scientists are stupid" and really think scientists are stupid