Are Americans (USA) the only ones who still deny global warming?

Question

and does it have anything to do with the oil companies spending $millions on propoganda?
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Oil_giant_paid_groups_to_mislead_0103.html
or is it just because they - as the worlds biggest consumers of energy - have a vested interest in denial?
(denial in action: http://www.zombietime.com/concourse_of_hypocrisy/14.html )

Answer 1

There are some people in any place we choose who denies climate change and effect of human activities on that, or who predict unbelievable religious or cosmic events, of course. But as "country" i think you mean government or citizen´s opinion.

As government it is obvious that USA is out of most global ageements about environmental policies since its president decided not to sign the Kyoto protocol.

Among the biggest countries such as Europe, India, China, Russia, Japan, Australia, etc. i think that governments follows what their citizens think according to surveys. They invest so much money in the fight against climate change because their citizens back them, unless they want to lose next elections :-)

About USA, i have read different surveys with different results. i think that US people must be around 50-50 %.
Obviously, oil cartel in USA has had influence on wars, business regulations, etc. and they have important interest on "burning oil" in exchange of $$$. But if you check surveys, they indicate year after year, that US citizens are more and more "green".
Organic food, fair trade, etc. that sometimes mean higher prices are important "sensors" and those business are growing in USA extremely fast, as in the rest of the world.
Obviously, right now, USA is not like most countries, but my opinion that it is becoming green as well. Also regarding climate change, and i have no doubt that they will be in the future.
Anyway, they will invest in the near future what they are not investing today.

Answer 2

Basically you're saying that the big oil companies are misleading the public when they claim that global warming is not a big problem.

And you have a problem with that, do you?

Yes, I'll bet you do.

But I'll also bet that you *don't* have a problem with the public being mislead when it's being done by those who are claiming that global warming is a big problem.

Let's take the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC). They produced their, now infamous, "hockey stick" graph which DELETED the Medieval Warm Period when it was 3°C warmer than it is now. And the computer model they used to create the graph was found to produce hockey stick results even if you put random data into it. How's *that* for misleading the public!

Or how about Al Gore and his film "An Inconvenient Truth"? I've only seen the trailer, but I've found lies even in that! He states that Mount Kilimanjaro is losing its snow-cap due to global warming. It isn't. Satellite data shows that the temperature at the summit is hardly changing. No, Mount Kilimanjaro is losing its snow-cap because post-colonial deforestation has dried the air.

So, I'd argue that most of them are as bad as each other at the moment.

Have a read of my source, below, it might just open your eyes to how much you're really being mislead.

Answer 3

Below is a link taking you to a NASA chart showing the temperature change from 1880 to 2005. As you can see this chart shows both yearly mean temps. as well as 5 year mean temps. Since 1880 the earth's temperature has risen less than 7/10 of 1 degree C. See for yourself here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/2005cal_fig1.gif There are numerous charts all over the internet showing the same. The fact that people choose to ignore the facts of these charts shows that they have an agenda to convince the masses of something that really is not happening. I'm not sure why they want to deceive those that fall for it, but the fact is they do want to do that.

In fact here are some links to secular scientific articles that the earth was actually warmer in the past than it is today.
http://www.msu.edu/course/isp/203/raeburn_old/fulltext/class9.pdf

And here's an article from a Harvard University study that says: "...scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia declared that the 1990s had been hotter than any other period for 1,000 years. Such claims have now been sharply contradicted by the most comprehensive study yet of global temperature over the past 1,000 years. A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today's temperatures are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most extreme weather - in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists.
The review, carried out by a team from Harvard University, examined the findings of studies of so-called "temperature proxies" such as tree rings, ice cores and historical accounts which allow scientists to estimate temperatures prevailing at sites around the world.

The findings prove that the world experienced a Medieval Warm Period between the ninth and 14th centuries with global temperatures significantly higher even than today."

The full article is here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/886197/posts

Answer 4

It's not a question of denying that certain temparatures in certain places are rising - we can measure that.

The question is - what is causing the rise? and is it significant?
It may be nothing whatsoever to do with mans activities.

There is a lot of bad 'green' propoganda put about.
Did you know for example, that after 9/11 all flights in USA were grounded for 3 days or so. This meant that there were no vapour trails - and this caused the temperatures across the US to *rise*, because less sunlight was being reflected back, and more reaching the earth's surface.
That's not to say that lots of air travel is necessarily good, but things ain't always as simple as they may seem.

Answer 5

So what if worldwide warming IS a certainty, do you assume that the politicians can opposite it? If CO2 in the ambience is the foremost offender, how lots of it truly is using the burning of fossil fuels? (answer: 4%) So what are they going to do, whilst CO2 emissions from the sea account for 50 seven% of CO2 in the ambience, and widespread respiratory debts for 38%, with in easy terms a million% being via ameliorations of land use and de-forestation? To make an significant substitute to the widespread volume of CO2 in the ambience, not to point opposite it, you does not be speaking in terms of a ten% alleviation in oil or coal intake, or perhaps 20%, or perhaps 30%. not something in need of fifty% is going to have lots of an result, and which could spell financial and social fall down. it truly is truly uncomplicated to state the glaring, even nonetheless it takes somewhat greater sophistication to reach at suitable solutions i'm afraid, and a few human beings walking to artwork or getting the bicycle out, could not maintain the planet. in certainty, the stylish obsession with worldwide-warming could be diverting mankind sort the greater pressing subject concerns of over-inhabitants, waste of aspects, chemical pollution and waste-disposal. apart from, all the western government proceed to hawk the parable of globalisation, neo-liberal economics and the rush in direction of international-huge consumerism; the very clarification for intense power production, delivery pollution and the subject concerns defined above. In a submit-client society, you may stand a gamble of being taken heavily, yet not as issues are at present, because of the fact there are too many vested pastimes in holding the prestige-quo of capitalism.

Answer 6

nope, there are plenty of people in the united states who are shouting the end of the world at the hands of global warming.

are you meaning to say that the rest of the entire rest of the world is wrapped up in this crap?

im not saying burning lots of fossil fuels is a good thing, and i even plan on buying a prius to save myself money, but global warming is just the current "its the end of the world!" eco-nut scheme. not even a decade ago, people were calling for the next ice age. cant you guys pick a global doom and stick with it?

the world has been slowly warming up since the last ice age...its called climate change and its been occuring for the last 5 billion or so years since the earth cooled. ya kno those really cool towers of rock out in wyoming, utah, colorado, etc. that you cant find anywhere else in the world? they were made by flooding!

for billions of years, life has addapted to the changes that occur...is the earth warming a bad thing, or are you just freaked out by the fact that we might have to change our way of life?

kudos to any of you who read that whole thing :P

Answer 7

We don't deny 'global warming'.

We do 'deny' that ...
1. Humans are 100% respsponsible for the current state. The climate has been warming for 10,000 yrs. since the end of the last ice age.

2. We 'deny' that it's 100% "bad". ie. there'll be "winners" and "losers" but it may come out as a "wash".

3. We 'deny' that there's anything we can significantly do about it.

Answer 8

LMAO! yessss....They are the only super power which isn't a part of the Kyoto Protocol as well...Ugh! They consume alot of energy AND they take advantage of resources of other poor countries....

And they keep saying that Global Warming isnt for real...maybe that's why the ice caps are melting and some islands like the maldives are goin to be swallowed up by the sea...

Answer 9

no... we are just the only ones that know it's not global warming, but "Climate Change"

it's a natural phenomenon.... that occurs over the years... the Earth gets colder and then warms up again... we are still coming out of an Ice Age, so it is going to be getting warmer... eventually it should hit the humidity and temperature that the dinosaurs had...

then it will swing back...

HUMANS DID NOT CAUSE THIS.... IT'S NATURAL

Answer 10

25 years ago we were worried about the fossil fuels running out and now these are causing the downfall of the planet! Whats next?