Why do so many of you reject the truth about global warming?

Question

Every single time I look at a question on Global Warming, the majority of the responses say something like "there is no evidence" of global warming. I ask you this: What cause is there for scientists to say global warming is real if it is not? And as well, I present to you the evidence:

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

An ice core from the right site can be used to reconstruct an uninterrupted and detailed climate record extending over hundreds of thousands of years, providing information on a wide variety of aspects of climate at each point in time. It is the simultaneity of these properties recorded in the ice that makes ice cores such a powerful tool in paleoclimate research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

Green represents CO2, while blue represents temperature.

Of course, now, CO2 and temperature can be recorded precisely. This just proves the link between them. And there is plenty of proof that we are causing the spike in CO2.

As the NAS report and the article in Newsweek both indicate, scientific knowledge regarding climate change was more uncertain than it is today. At the time that Rasool and Schneider wrote their 1971 paper, climatologists had not yet recognized the significance of greenhouse gases other than water vapor and carbon dioxide, such as methane, nitrous oxide and chlorofluorocarbons.[28] Early in that decade, carbon dioxide was the only widely studied human-influenced greenhouse gas. The attention drawn to atmospheric gases in the 1970s stimulated many discoveries in future decades. As the temperature pattern changed, global cooling was of waning interest by 1979.

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

Dr. T, the x-axis of the Vostok data graph is thousands of years ago.

The carbon dioxide appears to peak slightly after the temperature. But this is because the x-axis markers are in thousands of years AGO. They are going backwards, not forwards.

While the Carbon Dioxide levels appear to peak slightly after the temperatures, they are actually peaking slightly BEFORE the temperatures.

The Vostok data shows, conclusively, the OPPOSITE of what you have said it has shown.

Dr. T: The clearer Vostok graph makes it all the more clear: The CO2 is peaking before the temperature each time. How can you deny this?

Answer 1

It's all Political, don't be a Lemming. Global warming is at the fore front because politicians found how to use a new platform to get re-elected. The world leaders use it because they found ways to make money at it. This is a made up problem just like Global Cooling in the 1970's. Wake up people. I agree we need to be more efficient with our resources, and we should fine and jail companies who are dumping into our rivers maliciously. I want to stop the raiforest destruction, but to say that global warming is a serious man made issue and we need to destroy the American economy and bow down to the rest of the world certainly does not float my boat. Follow the money on this one and you will see that it is all for political gain and grant money for those scientists who profit off of the government if global warming stays at the front of the issues. Look deep into the Keoto (sp?) Treaty, first of all they took jets to a non-central resort location. Not very environmentally concious. THen in the parameters of the treaty they have a clause that makes it so you can buy or sell polution credits. This is all about shifting wealth and breaking down the United States. This is painfully obvious, just look at peoples agenda. The earth's mean temperature has risen .6 degrees C in the past 125 years. Greenland's icecaps have gotten colder in the past 10 years. The Scientists who do not gain anything on their posisition will tell you that the earth has a natural progression and this is what we are seeing. The UN report is made up of POLITICIANS not a good spread of scientists. THere are as many or more scientists who believe that man in NOT the reason and it is over hyped, but their voice is not heard in the LIberal Mainstream Media. This issue is 99% political, and an attempt to make the USA a socialist nation, and eventually communisim. WAKE UP AMERICA, IT IS TIME TO BE AMERICANS. FOR THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE. STOP THE LIES

Answer 2

The Vostok data shows, conclusively, that there has never been an incidence in over 400,000 years where a change in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has preceded a change in temperature. That should be underscored...it had NEVER happened.

What is commonly stated about the Vostok data, i.e., that it shows a link between temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, is equivalent to stating that there is a link between the mercury level in a thermometer and the temperature in a room. One cannot conclude, however, that adding more mercury to the thermometer will make the room warm up.

By the way, I do believe in the truth about global warming. The truth is that it cannot be human caused.

APPEND:

Take another look. This observation is not mine. It has been pointed out a vast number of times by many researchers. In fact, there is a good review of this subject on this web site: http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com .

Also, the plot on which this is easiest to see is here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg

Further, I have to agree with Bob's (the post following this one) third observation. However, in my case it applies to researchers who's entire current and future income depend on the existence of anthropogenic global warming.

If you are really open minded on the subject, take a look at the theoretical derivation of the greenhouse effect and note that earth's absorption of solar radiation and the Stefan-Boltzmann emission of thermal radiation both include an absorption coefficient. Therefore, if properly derived, that coefficient cancels in the resulting temperature equation and the final result gives planetary temperatures that are accurate within observational error for every planet in our solar system (including earth) with the exception of Venus. Venus' temperature differs from that calculated in such a way that it proves that Venus is still cooling, since its emitted radiation exceeds the solar incident radiation. So, the bottom line is, the derivation of the "greenhouse effect" is flawed, the Vostok data confirms that it is flawed, and without a "greenhouse effect" there can be no anthropogenic global warming.

Well, apparently, David, you have difficulty reading a graph. I will point out the easiest and let you continue from there. Take the peak that occurs 130,000 years ago. The insolation rises first, the temperature follows that, and the carbon dioxide concentration follows that. At the 125,000 year mark, the temperature falls and the carbon dioxide concentration stays elevated for approximately another 5000 years.

Again, this is not my observation and NASA even admits that there appears to be an approximately 1000 year time lag between temperature changes and carbon dioxide concentration changes. If you want to argue against it, you could use what others have said, i.e., that the atmospheric changes do not show up at the poles as fast as the temperature changes. But even anthropogenic global warming proponents admit to the 1000 year lag.

Answer 3

Hey this sounds wierd but back in the jurassic period there where no ice caps the earth was about 10 degrees warmer than it is now, but I think this "warming" will actually bring the ice age back, which technically we are still in, by rising the ocean levels and then that water will move or kill half the global population and that will reduce the CO2 levels and cool the earth causing a massive Ice growth killing more of the remaining population and whoevers left will fight for the remaining resources and land eventually leading to the human race being reduced to almost nothing. Yes it sounds crazy but I don't care.

Answer 4

Unfortunately its not about what the truth is, it is about what is most profitable for oil corporations. Now lets think about this for 1 minute, if you've sold lemonade on your street for 5 years made good money at your game and some new guy sets up shop across the street trying to sell applejuice what are you going to do??? You are going to try to run him out of town by ruining his reputation with the consumers you've had for years. The same is going on right now as we speak between oil companies and the eco friendly companies. The oil companies have big PR (public relations) compaigns going on aka (liars posing as scientists) to denounce the effects of global warming because it will hurt there business, thats it. Think about this for a minute also, american auto makers have been in the business for years and what are they still trying to sell us?? Gas guzzling SUVs that get 12 MPG while Japanese automakers are pumping out cars that are getting 40+ MPG!! Coicidence, I don't think so. They do not want fuel effecient cars or alternative fuel vehicles. The roadwork was laid out years ago and we are stuck with it.
Corporations and government are basically one unit anymore, there isn't to much we can do to change things now.

Answer 5

There are four reasons that people deny global warming.

They have seen environmental threats been oversold before. They haven't done enough research to know how united the scientific community, the business community, and he political communiy (conservatives and liberal alike) are in agreeing that global warming is real, and that the problem is us.

They prefer to deny reality rather han accept that they are actually going to have to change to address this. Human beings ofen do that.

They have a financial interest involved. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his income depends on him not understanding it."

They have extreme right wing political beliefs. If the left is saying something it must be wrong, no many how many mainstream conservatives and other non-left wingers agree.

Answer 6

There's actually a growing body of work in the human dimensions literature on the sociology and psychology of climate change denial, to the point that there are whole journals dedicated to understanding it.

For instance:

Stoll-Kleemann et al. The psychology of denial concerning climate mitigation measures: evidence from Swiss focus groups. GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE-HUMAN AND POLICY DIMENSIONS 11 (2): 107-117 JUL 2001

Too much to cover here, but suffice to say it is a major issue. Here's a (not very recent but publically available) article to start with:

http://www.ecoglobe.ch/motivation/e/clim2922.htm

Answer 7

One of the reasons the debate exists is money, plain and simple. scientists are like everyone else and can be "paid to prove" a theory. Since records are young in comparison to the planet we know there are climate changes that are part of normal course, however we do not have enough facts to prove or disprove it at the moment.

If you asked the correct question you would get a majority to yes, and incorrect question gets mixed results. If the question was could man be effecting the planet? most would answer yes. When you ask if we have Killed the the planet most would say no.

It is the way the question is posed. Since there is still room to debate it will continue.

Answer 8

The CO2 is what plants breathe in and gives us O2......so the planet may be greener. The climate is always changing...so much that they're's almost no such thing as normal. Just like the coast line.....it's always changing. I can't agree with all the scientists....cause to me the winter's are still cold......I don't see the polar ice caps melting......

Answer 9

Its not that so many are rejecting the truth about global warming, Its that so many are embracing the truth. Global warming caused by man is a lie plain and simple. Sorry.

Answer 10

It is hard to listen to scientists claims about global warming, because 30 years ago they were worried about global COOLING.