Can humans handle the truth? Why so much anger when arguing against global warming?

Question

from David Sington on climate change: Faced with a choice between an awkward fact and a comforting fiction, most people will take the fiction any day. And global warming is certainly inconvenient. Just when we have finally freed ourselves from the tedium of tilling the earth and gotten nice and comfortable with a big TV, central heating, cheap flights to exotic destinations, and an armor-plated all-terrain vehicle for nipping down to the mall, along come some bloody scientists to tell us that we can't go on as we are and as we like doing.

Answer 1

We can go on as we like if you want to, but what are we going to be leaving behind for our children to face in the future. We, as humans have got our ourselves into this mess, so we have to get ourselves out of it now. Regarding the anger it's because some people might have to do some things that they don't want to do to help with the global warming situation.

Answer 2

Global Warming is immensely wrapped up in politics and ideology. It is impossible to discuss it without people becoming heated. It also doesn't help that the issue is incredibly complicated. Climatology is a complicated, multi-faceted field of study.

There is no concrete evidence that humans are causing global warming. There is no concrete evidence that they aren't. Granted all the stuff we pour into the atmosphere can't be *good* for it. But is it hubris to assume that mankind's recent super industrialization (the past thirty forty years or so) has more affect on the atmosphere than the suns most recent bout of hyperactivity (that has been going on for the past hundred years)? There's even evidence that cosmic rays from stars in deep space could have an affect on cloud cover.

But people like simple answers, soundbite answers. Answers that can be easily understood. This is dangerous with complicated issues and readily creates an atmosphere where people cover their ears and go 'la-la-la' when they hear evidence that contradicts their view. The resulting argument sounds as virulent as any religious argument.

People also like answers they can do something about, ideally something that will also let them look down on other people. So if the sun's hyperactivity is to blame then there really isn't much we can do about it. If driving a hybrid car makes us look enlightened then we can look down our nose at people still driving gas-guzzlers.

Humans can handle the truth, but many choose not to because the truth is so complicated that a simple 'if-then' solution to what may be the wrong problem is preferable to looking at all the aspects of a complex, view-challenging situation

(By the way, I favor helping out the environment whenever and wherever we can. I'm just not entirely certain that global warming has been completely caused by mankind or that it can be slowed/stopped/reversed by anything that we can do.)

Hope this helps.

Incidentally, seventy years ago every scientist was in consensus that climate change only happened over thousands of years. Thirty years ago scientists were in consensus that the earth was *cooling.* Just because scientists *know* that humans are the cause of global warming, doesn't mean that they are right. Does that mean we should throw out their opinions and what they have learned? Not at all! But we shouldn't stop looking at other causes or for other facts just because we 'know' the answer.

Answer 3

I am sure that you will not like what I have to say, but I will say it anyway. What amazes me is the fact that any scientist that bucks the liberal agenda is ostracized and ignored. So I wonder just what the truth may be. Here is what I do know. Global Warming is only an issue at all because of the billions of dollars at stake. The destructive view of global warming is blown way out of proportion. It is nothing more than a scare tactic to get money from big companies and governments. I do believe global warming is happening, but it is a natural thing. It has more to do with the sun's activities than man. The leading "experts" were so sure that we were heading into an ice age in the 1970's. This is nothing more than alarmist BS designed to fuel a new industry. It is elitist BS. Look at all the private planes Al Gore has taken all over the world to present his drivel. He could have done the same thing via a web conference and cost a lot less in emissions. They tell you to be green, but I do not see them being green. The only thing I see is them lining their own pockets. Furthermore, MT. St. Helens released more greenhouse gases in 1 eruption than all cars combined since they were invented. I see all these people griping about CO2. Let me let you in on a little secret, NASA has had the tech for DECADES to rid an atmosphere of CO2. Ever seen Apollo 13? Why not just build huge scrubbers if in fact this is the case? Don't get me wrong, I am all for reasonable protections for the enviroment, but this global warming thing is not only unreasonable, it has little basis in actual fact. Scientists disagree about the desructiveness that may or may not occur. Furthermore, the standards in the most recent study by the so called experts were eased so that they could say they thought with most certainty that man causes this. So to finish, can we handle the truth? Sure we can. Just don't feed us all a load of crap with spin and just give us ALL the facts.

Answer 4

There's an interesting comparison in Al Gore's book:
From a sample of 928 peer-reviewed articles dealing with climate change published in scientific journal in the past 10 years, 0% were in doubt as to the cause of global warming.
From a sample of 636 articles in the popular press over the last 14 years, 53% were in doubt as to the cause of global warming.

If you get your information from the popular press and not from peer-reviewed science journals, then you would be reasonable in your belief that there is some doubt and plenty of room for denial.

If you hear radicals saying that we are all doomed, start doing what they are doing. Not everything at once, but just make a few changes. Within a few years you will be a trend-setter and spending less on waste.

Doesn't George W Bush have a house with solar power and gey water reuse? If so he has the "act locally" part right. He needs to work on the "think globally".

Answer 5

For some reason, it's become a left/right (on the political spectrum) debate. Perhaps if some celebrity other than Al Gore had helped focus the public's attention, it would be different.

IMO, the actions taken to slow global warming would affect businesses and corporations (specifically oil and manufacturing); we know who their supporters are.

Answer 6

apparantly you cant wussy