Why do some people have to believe that climate change is 100% caused by humans?

Answer 1

This question really belongs in the Psychology or Religion section. When you boil all the arguments down, it comes to "because everyone says so." which, of course, does not make it true, but does result in personal attacks like the one from your first responder. The deliberate distortions of data and data presentation by the IPCC and other supporters of the man-made global warming theory indicate to me that they are unable to show causation.

That the Earth is presently in a warming trend is undeniable. We have over 100 years of recorded data that indicate this. We also have 58 years of data showing a marked increase in CO2 concentrations, so that, too is undeniable, at least at Mauna Loa. What we do NOT have is a correlation between the two that shows causation either way.

Answer 2

First of all, let’s be clear about this, not even the most alarmist of global warming alarmists are trying claim that *all* of the warming we are experiencing is down to human activity. If you ever hear anyone suggesting it is, you should treat them the same way you would if they were trying to suggest that the world is flat.

So, the real question is… “Why do some people have to believe that climate change is significantly effected by humans?”

Well, to be fair to these people, what chance have they got? They are getting bombarded with misinformation from the media. Barely a day goes by without a news report “highlighting the dangers of global warming”. And since the general public are not experts in this field and don’t have the time or interest to go and do some research themselves to discover the truth, they tend to simply go along with what they are being told.

A classic example of this was when ITV news ran a whole week of the 10 O’clock News from Antarctica a month or so ago. They spent the whole week showing the public the melting ice and saying “Look at it! All the ice is melting! It’s global warming!”

Not once did they mention the “minor” detail that Antarctica is in the southern hemisphere and so its seasons are the reverse of ours – so, while it was mid-winter here, is was mid-summer in Antarctica. Nor did they mention that most of Antarctica is within the Antarctic Circle and so, at mid-summer, the sun doesn’t set at all and is thus shining on the ice 24hrs a day.

When you are made aware of those facts, it’s suddenly not surprising, let alone shocking, that the ice is melting. In fact, Antarctica is *not* getting any warmer on a year-to-year basis. So the ice there, again on a year-to-year basis, is *not* melting. Even the IPCC’s latest report accepts that this is true.

So, effectively, ITV were lying to the public. Why? Because it’s good for viewing figures – which is all ITV cares about.

And the list goes on and on; the infamous “hockey-stick” graph, which is the “poster-child” of the global warming alarmists, is a lie.

I recently saw a report from some glacier study that said; out of 85 glaciers that they monitored, 82 were shrinking and the other 3 were just about holding steady – none were growing. But there are 160,000 glaciers in the world and 90% of them are in Antarctica. As I mentioned above, the ice in Antarctica is not melting. In fact, 80% of the glaciers in Antarctica are getting colder and gaining mass. Any genuinely fair and representative study of 85 random glaciers should show *at least* 72% (or 61) of them *growing*. So that report was extremely misleading.

Why do they get away with this?

On the other hand, one of the websites in my sources, below (revealing that the UN had minimised the sun's role in changing past and present climate, persisted in proven errors and used unsound data, questionable graphs and meretricious maths to exaggerate future warming threefold) received 127,000 hits when it first appeared (it then crashed under the onslaught!). But there was no mention of its contents on the news. Why not?


The simple fact is “It’s going to be a disaster!” is much more interesting than “There’s nothing to worry about” – so which do you think gets reported most often?

And, of course, as others have said above, what you’re worried about, you will accept the government taxing you for – to “save” you from it. Alcohol is bad for you – so we accept loads of tax on alcohol. Cigarettes are bad for you – se we accepts loads of tax on cigarettes. Petrol is bad for the environment, so we accept loads of tax on petrol.

If the government can get us sufficiently scared about global warming, we’ll accept loads of taxes on everything that they can convince us is to blame, whether it’s cars and aircraft, or light bulbs and TVs on standby – you name it, they’ll tax it.

So, we have a simple choice: Blindly believe the hype – and pay through the nose for it, or learn the truth and save yourself some money.

Neither option will have much effect on the climate, but the effect on your wallet may be severe!

It’s your choice.

Answer 3

One reason some human beings deny human-led to climate replace is they're over-reacting to the reality that there are some people who're employing climate replace as the thank you to construct a political flow. merely because of the fact there are some people who politicize a scientific concept, however, would not recommend the theory itself isn't valid. there's a place for scientific skepticism, even if, and it always seems that skepticism with admire to international warming isn't consistently tolerated. that's a valid subject, even if it motives some human beings to return slightly unhinged and react emotionally, brushing aside the completed concept that international warming is occurring in any respect. i think international warming is genuine and that we people have a minimal of heavily extra effective it, yet i'm skeptical of particular predictions more suitable with the help of people who look to apply it as an accessory to an anti-company or anti-American schedule, somewhat in the event that they're additionally advertising a action picture or advertising t-shirts. additionally, climate technology is extremely complicated so i'm skeptical whilst scientists declare to renowned precisely how the undertaking is going to unfold 50 or one hundred years into the destiny. That stated, I agree that it rather is infantile to leap to the contrary end and deny that it rather is genuine. and that i agree additionally that it rather is unscientific to think of you would be able to refute scientists devoid of doing one's very own rigorous scientific artwork, or devoid of even being qualified to extend an counseled scientific opinion. Absolutists on the two facets could desire to attempt harder to chop up the technology from their thoughts and their politics.

Answer 4

Because most people believe everything that is in the media. If the newsreaders keep blasting on about it for long enough then people will start to feel that it is really because of us that global warming occurs. Once people feel guilty enough the clever politicians can then bring in more taxes that otherwise couldn't have been brought in. Global warming and cooling as occurred many times throughout the years (around the 16th century it was so warm that Greenland was actually green land!) so we are foolish to think that we are big enough to cause something like that. This is a natural process it would happen whether we are on Earth or not.

Answer 5

Of course all climate change is not 100% man, but.....

There is a specific climate change being caused by humans. It is unusally rapid. It is extremely powerful. Our society is very vulnerable to it. It threatens to flood coastal areas and cause severe damage to agriculture.

Rich countries will have to spend hundreds of billions to deal with it, causing an economic depression. In poor countries people will die of starvation.

So we have to work to reduce this particular climate change. Of course we can't stop all climate change. But we must work to reduce the unusually rapid and powerful change known as global warming. Or it will be the greatest disaster in human history.

Answer 6

Of course, not all climate change is caused by humans.

The current problematic situation, however, is. That is to say, without human production of carbon emissions, we would not have the drastic climate change we are experiencing now.

Answer 7

It had become the liberal religion. They accept it based on faith and anyone who questions its merits is deemed a heretic. This particular religion also has an armaggedon principle just like any other religion. This particular religion is being prophetized by the liberal messiah - al gore.

Answer 8

it's what the media have us to believe, i have done some research and watched documentry's showing the natural cycle of CO2 in the atmosphere. in our current time CO2 levels are low and we are coming out of an ice age.

we should concentrate more on conservation, reducing pollution and working with the environment instead of raping it for what we can get.

Answer 9

Curable ignorance for the greater part, mental illness accounting for perhaps 5% or so.

The bigger issue as I perceive it, is what is the INTENT of those misleading them with that baloney?

Answer 10

Maybe an overreaction to those who believe that it's 100% not.