Why are those that believe in global warming so scared of facts that disprove it?

Question

Is there position on global warming so weak it can't stand up to debate?

I hear all the numbers of scientists that agree with Global warming yet they are in the minority. Less is more then?

Answer 1

The Global Warming hype is a way to advance the cause of collectivism. First they take what is a natural event (Global warming & cooling cycles) and claim that it's being caused by mankind (anthropomorphic) Then they foment hysteria by over-blowing the conclusions. For example the summary from the United Nations’(not the full report, it has data that attacks the anthropomorphic premise) a much anticipated compendium on climate change. Under the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s emission scenario for greenhouse gases, a rise in sea level of between 8 and 17 inches is predicted by 2100. Gore’s film exaggerates the rise by about 2,000 percent. Yikes! Even 17 inches is likely to be high, because it assumes that the concentration of methane, an important greenhouse gas, is growing rapidly. Atmospheric methane concentration hasn't’t changed appreciably for seven years, and Nobel Laureate Sherwood Rowland recently pronounced the IPCC’s methane emissions scenarios as “quite unlikely.” Here's some recent inconvenient data. According to satellite data published in Science in November 2005, Greenland was losing about 25 cubic miles of ice per year. Dividing that by 630,000 yields the annual percentage of ice loss, which, when multiplied by 100, shows that Greenland was shedding ice at 0.4 percent per century. and hot off the press In early February, Science published another paper showing that the recent acceleration of Greenland’s ice loss from its huge glaciers has suddenly reversed. Nowhere in the traditionally refereed scientific literature do we find any support for Gore’s hypothesis. Instead, there’s an unrefereed editorial by NASA climate firebrand James E. Hansen, in the journal Climate Change — edited by Steven Schneider, of Stanford University, who said in 1989 that scientists had to choose “the right balance between being effective and honest” about global warming (Agenda driven Science)— and a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that was only reviewed by one person, chosen by the author, again Dr. Hansen. See a pattern here? on Drudge Report we are given this article *Climate Panel Recommends Global Temperature Ceiling, Carbon Tax* http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-02-28-voa2.cfm They want to tax and control our economy. Put us under the control of a U.N. that is both corrupt and Collectivist. This report was crafted by 18 scientists requested by the same corrupt UN that stands to benefit from it's implementation and the lead researcher of the report is a John Holdren of Harvard University He has a decades long history of Agenda driven policy initiatives http://ksgfaculty.harvard.edu/John_Holdren and is not even a climate expert. Holdren, however, says even these measure will achieve very little unless they are accompanied by a global tax on greenhouse gas emissions. A lock-box mindset that ignores promising research on Iron-Catalyzed Plankton Restoration. Make no mistake the purveyors of Anthropormorphic Climate Change wish to sequester more than just carbon...

Answer 2

the "facts" provided by who? The majority of scientists and any normal person will agree that global warming is happening. In reality there still are no facts that disproves global warming because it is a true fact that polar ice caps are melting and that abnormal temperatures is occuring everywhere.
Just think about it this way... if people continue to pollute and kill trees, won't there be some negative consequence? How can people disprove this? What we are going through is not a natural process, global warming is clearly the creation of human ignorance towards nature.

Answer 3

They're not. They simply believe that the facts that prove it are more compelling than the crazy stuff that's used to attack it.

Here's the strength of the scientific consensus and just a few of the supporting facts.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/mauna_loa_record/mlo_record.html

http://aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

These aren't environmental extremists. They're some of the most respected experts in the world. Whereas the "facts" against global warming most often come from a Senator of an oil producing state, a science fiction writer, and a journalist who says tobacco smoke is good for people.

And the reasons commonly cited (volcanoes, solar radiation, natural cycle) are all disproved by data that's been measured extensively and independently. The reasons are simply wrong.

Which is why the people below believe global warming is fact. They've intelligently evaluated the various positions and come to the conclusion that the scientific evidence, taken as a whole, proves global warming is real. They don't get their information from "An Inconvenient Truth" they get it from the best scientists in the world. You may not respect all of them, but surely you respect some.

"The science of global warming is clear. We know enough to act now. We must act now."

James Rogers, CEO of Charlotte-based Duke Energy.

"The overwhelming majority of atmospheric scientists around the world and our own National Academy of Sciences are in essential agreement on the facts of global warming and the significant contribution of human activity to that trend."

Russell E. Train, Republican, former environmental official under Presidents Nixon and Ford

"We simply must do everything we can in our power to slow down global warming before it is too late. The science is clear. The global warming debate is over."

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republican, Governor, California

"Our nation has both an obligation and self-interest in facing head-on the serious environmental, economic and national security threat posed by global warming."

John McCain, Republican, Senator, Arizona

"These technologies will help us become better stewards of the environment - and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change."

President George Bush

There's no fear involved. The "facts" you speak of are simply not persuasive. The scientific case for global warming is persuasive.

Answer 4

Here is an answer I gave too another Q. The polar ice caps are melting because UV rays cut and crack the ice which causes its denigration. The high UV is a result of CFC's-and most are global warming gases. Oil companies have used the system the best removing light rails and trains for buses and cars. Gov went along w/ this robbery. So if someone wants to make a deal out of GW and politics-I laugh. WE ALL HAVE AN AGENDA. Here is a letter I sent Al GOre: Putting the technology together to start cleaning up and reintroducing new ozone to the atmosphere is possible. The cost and size of this project means taking a long term commitment. I am proposing the biggest cleanup in history. Al, I do not see any proposal that is realistic or proven at any cost, not even Washington can solve this problem. But if every person on earth does his or her share, we may be ok. Never-the-less, I see governments acting like a deer in a car’s headlights and people doing the same thing. The inevitable is almost upon us. Cleanup and change is the only option.
The first cleanup machine starts with a ten billion dollars investment. Ten year later with twenty-five machines operating, these machines will produce enough ozone to replace both holes at the poles. But more importantly, these machines will remove chemicals that deplete the ozone. Beyond making ozone, decreasing the poisons that deplete ozone, these machines reduce the major greenhouse gases and unbelievably we can have all this for fewer than one hundred billion dollars.
Beyond cleaning up our atmospheric mess as I am suggesting, we humans must do a better job reducing or cleaning up carbon monoxide, collecting and storing methane and ethane for fuel, burning less of everything, cleaning up our forests and using more solar insolation. Solar steam electric generators are the type of systems we need and are 90 percent efficient and near 100 percent if heat recovery is used. I believe nearly 30,000 MW are needed in the USA and Mexico over the next 30 years. This opens the door to new electric cars, new construction vital to our way of life, new bullet trains, and these industries produce new high paying jobs. From small scale solar generators on malls, to 2000 acre collector sights, these systems are viable and ready for production. The Federal Government must give up some land, money and have less regulation to help save the planet from disaster.
Al, spreading the message that we can help ourselves is a key to the development of these businesses. Washington can help: the businesses need grants, patents, land and regulations. Congress must create a pollution surcharge. From gas, coal, diesel, wood to cooling towers, from cattle, other ranches to cigarettes, from agriculture burning to airplane passengers, this surcharge can fund parts of these projects and many stationary pollution control devices in general.
Your personal support is very important to getting the atmosphere cleanup started and developing sights for solar generators.

Sincerely,

What is there to debate?

Answer 5

And just what is YOUR debate? You haven't stated anything.
If you saw "An Inconvenient Truth" you would NOT be asking this question. And if you didn't see it then you are commenting with insufficient facts, including your false statement regarding scientists opinions of global warming-which was clearly addressed by Al Gore. Watch the documentary first, because right now you sound like one of the Mark Twain's quotes:
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." Open your mind to possibilities beyond what you think is so.

Answer 6

Lets look at the facts, the earth has warmed recently, the earth is cooler than it was at the last ice age, and the earth is cooler than when the dinosaurs were here. There is an overall pattern or oscillation of temperatures over time. There are times when the earth has been warmer and times when it has been cooler. In the end, we have a far smaller influence than many other natural occurrences. Enough Methane gas, an greenhouse gas, is released in the ocean off the east coast to power a large portion of the United States. Enough pollutants are released from one volcanic eruption to exceed all the pollution generated by humans in an entire year. Earth is full of factors that are independent of human influence. Should we care about our influence, sure, but lets be realistic.

There is a group of scientist that now believe that what we are seeing is the beginnings of a mini ice age similar to that seen in the middle ages. Their evidence is very compelling, but its not the Armageddon or politically correct answer.

Answer 7

since the global warming debate is primarily political
each side uses facts that support their ideology
the emission trading scheme has a built in profit factor which would also be a driving force
basically the truth lies somewhere in the middle
statistical data in Canada has only been compiled since 1948
concise data has only been collected since 1975
and global warming is still a theory it has not been established as a fact

Answer 8

Because so called global warming is more than just a science issue; it's a political pawn that the left and liberal socialists will use to legislate for more control of people and take away individual freedoms.

Answer 9

Have you looked at the facts? Or have you seen "An Inconvenient Truth"?
If you have compared satellite pictures of the ice on the earth 10 years ago you can see the differences in it now. And if you look at the animals that are becoming endangered you night have a difference point of view.

Answer 10

Know one is saying that the planet does not go thru the yig and yang of warming and cooling. It is the speed of the warming that is the issue.