Are global warming deniers now just another group of conspiracy theorists?

Question

I can understand how someone could believe in a conspiracy theory about the JFK assasination or gasoline prices. Few people involved, little hard data.

But how could someone think the moon landing a hoax? Thousands of scientists involved around the world. Hundreds of geologists examining moon rocks. Radio telescopes all around the world precisely tracking the flight.

And I don't understand how someone could deny the IPCC report. 100s of scientists in 130 countries. Thousands more looking over their shoulder.

The full IPCC report will be 1600 pages crammed full of data. It will be the most heavily peer reviewed scientific document in history. By the way, "virtually certain" was changed to "very likely" to get unanimous agreement.

Check out this article:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070202.wclimate0202/BNStory/Front

"It used only peer reviewed published science and was edited by representatives of 113 governments that also had to agree to every word"

Answer 1

Roadkill, you don't allow E-mail or IM, so I'm responding to you here. Hopefully you'll read it, but if not, at least some other people might. Practically every point you raised in your answer is incorrect.
Your first point-that it was warmer in 1930- makes me wonder if you've ever even bothered to look at a temperature graph. I know some certain areas were warmer, but the average global temperatures certainly weren't.
Next, you mentioned the medieval warm period. Ignoring the fact that the graph you're referring to is now almost a decade old (ancient history in climate science), the reason the IPCC did not include the medieval warm period is because the MWP was not global. It was confined to the upper half of the Atlantic.
And even if it were global, Vikings never farmed on Greenland. 95% of the ice covering Greenland has been there for the last 150,000 years. How is it even possible that Vikings could have farmed?
Your point about climate shifting in the past is kind of irrelevant, so I'll ignore it. You were absolutely correct when you said "it doesn't prove humans aren't contributing to the latest warming trend".
And last, you said "It is a fact that a single volcano erupting can expel more greenhouse gases in a single eruption than has been produced by mankind since the beginning of time".
This is absolutely, 100%, completely not true. The most recent estimates by volcanic experts with the USGS say that, globally, volcanoes release about 150 million tonnes (Mt) of CO2 annually. By comparison, humans annually emit more than 22 billion tonnes (Gt) of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion alone, and another 6 or so Gt of CO2 from deforestation. That's more than 100 times as great as volcanic emissions.

Oh, Ryan K and JOHNNIE B, you realize that you're accusing the entire scientific community of fraud, right? That's a hell of an accusation.

Answer 2

In the early to mid 1980s, the big worry was global cooling. Now it's global warming. They've been saying it's too late for year. I for one am tired of them jumping up and down yelling this junk when it hasn't happened. Not now, not in ten years, not in 100.
I wouln't call it a 'conspiracy', but 'bad science'. We have been measuring temperature consistently for...one hundred, maybe two hundred years? That's too small a sample to draw any conclusion. Also, the temperature changes have not varied enough to cause concern yet. Some areas of the world have warmed, but most of the places in the US have seen lower than average temperatures. The world has been warming and cooling, and we, who occupy about 2% of the world's surface, think we can affect what happens in the whole earth.
These scientists never answer if they are wrong, or all these guys would be out of business. If the earth is the same temperature in 10 years, are any of these scientists disgraced? No. They will just come out with another story like this one again, and people like you who have forgotten the past will be up in arms again.
Don't be fooled by scientists. Not too long ago they all thought the world was flat too.
I think the scientist spout this stuff to look important, and tell the people who paid for their last study what they want to hear, so they can get funding for the next study.
How many of the 100 or so scientists you cite have actually read all 1600 pages? I have seen studies at least that long that have had major flaws and ludacris assumptions, not the least of which was the Kyoto treaty. The 100 scientists were probably picked and are not objective. The 113 countries are polititions, not scientists. They do what is percieved as popular opinion and are rarely ethical. They would't understand the report if they read it.
The Kyoto treaty estimated men contributed to around %0.1 of the greenhouse gasses. That wasn't mentioned in any news story. What their recomendations were to control that was. Why do you trust journalists? Read the report yourself, and then ask why people don't react. And have you tracked the temperature of your own state?

Answer 3

I think the "deniers" are taking more heat than they deserve because people realize that if this report is correct, the positive effects of taking any preventive measures now far outweigh the negative effects of our inaction in the future. The "deniers" are seen as people who just don't give a damn about our future environment, and, for the most part, that just isn't true.

The deniers have some pretty good science on their side, too. Natural cyclic climate change, for instance. And it is obvious that the general consensus numbers are skewed by the scientists and meteorologists that depend, at least in part, to the grants from the government and private donations to study this phenomenon.

The people who depend on these grants are in agreement almost 100%!
Good, unbiased science? I think not.

I personally believe (and I'm no climate expert) that it is inconceivable that man can spew millions of tons of CO and CO2 into our atmosphere annually and it won't have any effect - that's just not using common sense. And I think the "consensus" is definitely tilting in favor of man's contribution to the greenhouse effect.
The debate seems to have settled around just how large of an effect this is - and I suspect this debate will be ongoing for a while longer before a valid and verifiable conclusion can be drawn.

Answer 4

I think a very high percentage of them are if this category of Y/A is any indication, in most questions and answers from the opposition camp there is some sort or reference to conspiracy. And the link, I suppose, supports the proposition. But I don't think it would be accurate to describe ALL deniers as conspiracy theorists. Or at least not all skeptics. I can't actually think of anyone here that I would describe as a 'denier' who hasn't related some type of conspiracatorial plan to AGW, but surely there are some.

Answer 5

Simple: they just do not want to change their ways, and do not want to feel guilty for their current ways. It is perhaps a manifestation of religious fundamentalism to a certain degree, the same kind that makes people insist that evolution is not true, and the only the bible is right, and yadda yadda yadda. Creationism is denying to see the truth or acknowledging facts that run against someone's belief, even if those make no sense. Denying global warming is also believing that nothing humans can do would really impact the world, and that god is not really in charge -- if there is indeed global warming, then everyone is hit, the just and the unjust, and they have an issue with them being victimized by the consequence of their own actions.
So, in the end, this is the manifestation of not accepting one's responsibility in the matter; or to put it bluntly, of being childish.

Answer 6

Because facts are not decided by majority vote. It is a fact it was hotter world wide in the 1930's than it is now. It is a fact that the latest global warming data used by the U.N. has deleted the well known medival warm period where temperatures were much warmer world wide than they are now. It is a fact 1000 years ago Vikings farmed in Greenland where it is too cold to farm now.

It is a fact that the earth has cooled and warmed many times in the past, such as during and after the last ice age. That most of these dramatic climate changes occured before humans had any impact on the climate. While that in itself doesn't prove humans aren't contributing to the latest warming trend. It does prove that global warming and cooling has occurred many times without human involvement.

It is also a fact that a single volcano erupting can expell more greenhouse gases in a single eruption than has been produced by mankind since the begining of time. So it is clear all the efforst to reduce greenhouse gases could be rendered pointless by a single volcanic eruption.

Answer 7

The earth has been warming since the last ice age. This is the main reason some believe global warming to be a natural process. A conspiracy theory implies that someone is gaining something. Oil production would lose money and a lot of money would be spent on developing alternative energy, so where's the conspiracy?

Answer 8

The problem is are these scientist being paid for there report. If they say it is normal there will be no money to study it.