Are the most fervent opponents of Global Warming simply uneducated on the subject?

Question

I have never met a person with a degree in Chemistry, or climatology etc. that does not agree that humans are having an impact on Global temperatures..

If these people had even a rudimentary understanding of the physical properties of Greenhouse gases they would agree that reducing their emissions is a good idea..

I think that the opponents of Global Warming simply do not WANT it to be true.. So they deny deny deny..

I am an Environmental Conservation major from a state university and I do not know for sure the extent that humans are raising the temperature of the Earth.. I simply have common sense and a love for the Earth.. I think on this issue it is better to err on the side of caution

Josh, what are you talking about?

Flyboy.. I am a GRADUATE.. So I have completed my studies..

Also, I stated that I do not have a PROVEN (perfect) answer.. There is no such thing.. All I know.. And as you should know being a student of chemistry.. is that Greenhouse gases trap heat.. Nuff said.. It's as simple as that.. If you can prove that Greenhouse gases do not trap heat.. Then my man, the Bush White House has a place (and paycheck) for you..

Also, on your comment about erring on the side of caution..

it has nothing to do with economics.. The constiution, and federal laws state that the government must protect the people.. Therefore it is thier responsiblity to err on the side of caution.. It should matter very little to congress what PRIVATE businesses have to do to keep up with regulations.. The clean industries should stay, the dirty ones should get clean, or die..

Mt. Zion..Great point.. I certainly agree with you.. The science isn't perfect.. It is probably impossible right now to prove given our current technologies and capabilities..

I come back to the properties of Greenhouse gases once again.. What is the probability that Greenhouse gases trap heat? What is the probablity that Greenhouse gases trap heat within the Earth?

I guess people either agree with the idea of global warming depending on the science they are subject to and understand..

Answer 1

It's a political thing for many.

If a liberal or an environmentalist says it, it must be wrong. If Al Gore says it, doubly so, even though he has absolutely nothing to do with the science.

Given the alternative of siding with people they despise, some people would rather believe that the vast majority of climatologists in the world

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

are wrong, neglect obvious natural causes, fake science for money, or are engaged in an an enormous conspiracy.

There's a lot of information on global warming available. It's not a lack of education, it's selective bias in what people believe. Given the above, some people would simply rather believe the few scientists who disagree.

Answer 2

Well you've just met your first. I've got a degree in chemical engineering and have been studying the environment as a sideline for the past 30 years. I started about the time everyone was worried about global cooling. So, bubba, I probably have a much better understanding about processes and systems affecting the Earth's climate than you ever will have.

After reading hundreds of papers for and against man caused global warming the conclusion I come to is that the case for it has not been proved.

I assume that you have some serious science courses in your studies. Perhaps you have not taken them yet. It worries me that someone who might have taken college level science courses would make some of the statements that you do. Your statements have more to do with theology and feelings than they do with science.

In science a theory is either proved, disproved or not yet proved. Science is not proved by consensus, agreement without provable facts, wants and needs, feelings or love.

Your statement that "it is better to err on the side of caution" tells me that in addition to not having a scientifically informed opinion on the subject that you have no knowledge of the economic costs involved in your proposal.

Additional details:

Shabtown...

Thanks for proving the points I've made above with your additional details. The fact that greenhouse gases trap heat is a good thing. Otherwise, the Earth would be a bit of an ice ball. By the way, economics has EVERTHING to do with it. You need to do a little post graduate work on this to help you understand why.

Flyboy.

Answer 3

Maybe you need to get around more. I have a Batchelor of Science and Master's degree in Mathamatics with a thesis in probability theory. The statisticialns are entering the arena and it isn't pretty for the global warming crowd. I haven't met a statistitian yet who believes that conclusions can be drawn based on the data that the global warming people are depending on.

To claim, with any degree of certainty that we know the average global temperatures of this planet 1000, 300, 100, 20 or even ONE year ago is absurd. The global warming people claim an average of .3 degrees F per decade increase. This falls well outside any reasonable margin of error.

The science used to conclude that the earth is warming will not stand up to scrutiny and they know it.

Answer 4

I admit that I'm not on your list of sought after denials by major. I've got a BS in geology and an MS in environmental science.

I believe in global warming (the earths atmosphere is dynamic and not static), but I do not believe that man has caused it.

If you look at other than the "approved" data sources, specifically the physics department at MIT, you will see alot of current research shows CO2 as a lagging indicator. CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't cause warming, but warming (increased release of CO2 from the huge sink that is the ocean) increases the amount CO2 in the atmosphere (usually with a lag of a couple hundred years).

For your "man, specifically white men, are the root of all evil" friends, how do you explain the hundreds of documented warming and cooling periods (some that were warmer and had higher CO2 levels) that occurred not just before industrialization, but before man?

Answer 5

Ok, Just a couple of quick points.

First, the education level has very little to do with the opposition. (though we would all like to believe that those most opposed are also least educated on the subject) There are those who have had the facts staring them in the face for years and yet vehimatly deny what they see. They are educated and well read on the subject. And yet they are the ones that refuse to believe the most. These people are mainly those whos livelyhoods rely on the production of environmentaly damaging goods or services and for that reason to deny the truth allows them to deny the responsibility. Then of course you have a large contingent of Seniors (not every one but a large group) do not want to accept that the actions of their generations started us on this ecological downward spiral.

Second point is that with all of the information circulating about previous "Ice Ages" and Global temperature changes it is hard to convince a person that mankind is responsible for the change that we are expieriancing today. My arguement is that rather than try to convince someone that it is our actions that cause global warming we should rather try to show them that what we do creates toxins and unsightly trash that can be hazzardous to our health and at the very least looks like crap. The point here is that most people don't like looking at crap floating around our streets but don't want to pick it up either so if they are offered a way to lessen that portion of the equation they are more likely to do something about it at home and when they are out.

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle-- The pollution solution.

Answer 6

This is in answer not only to the original question but to the replies that came after it as well.

Yes I think it is the result of ignorance and denial that these people oppose the idea of global warming.

Now as for the earth having temperature cycles:
Yes it most certainly does, and they have been studied. We know the factors that influenced it (just like we know the factors that influence storms). What you are forgetting is that our effects have been measured over time and you can see a direct correlation to the actions of humanity and the behavior of say, the ozone layer. I don;t know why people find it unbelievable that humans have caused some of the temperature changes seen. I suppose those same people would blame acid rain caused by pollution on 'earth's regular cycle' too.

Oh, and if you doubt the hole in the ozone layer too, go here http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/
and take the tour.

Answer 7

a million. sure, the controversy has been occurring for years now, and could proceed. 2. not sure that they have, sounds like paranoia and scarcity of credibility to me. Scientists have not often stored quiet while believing in something. 3.great, I even have not been deceived. i do no longer declare that guy is the only or perhaps the foremost rationalization for climate substitute, in no way heard all of us declare this. As people, the failings that we are able to do to electrify the climate substitute are very constrained. we can not provide up volcanic activity, nor cool the sunlight. we are able to shield, decrease power utilization, and locate different materials of renewable power. This has additionally been a countrywide secure practices mandate in view that Nixon, each President in view that has spoke of the ought to offer ourselves with power. by way of fact the only species in the worldwide able to rational thought and identifying on our very own movements, this is sensible that we ought to consistently be the desirable stewards of our planet. If it seems down the line that mans impact on climate substitute is negligible, the movements recommended by ability of many scientists could nonetheless have slowed toxins a minimum of. that would not be a bad factor.

Answer 8

NOT ONLY UNEDUCATED ON THE SUBJECT...
also uneducated on others... but that´s an other issue

The thing is they can just TELL STORIES like "it´s the Sun" or whatever... but when it comes to real science with figures and quantifiying, putting objective numbers, not just words, where are they ????

Same reason why they don´t realize the increase in Sun radiation only adds 0.15 W/m2 to the 1.4 W/m2 of global warming

Same reason why they don´t realize that if climate changes and they are cycles, those cycles NEVER caused such a fast increase and would not have been noticeable over a lifetime. That´s where they are wrong in the scale.
We´re talking about something that happens NOW and FAST

Answer 9

We are not uneducated.

Climate change is a natural phenomenon. Throughout millions of years, the climate has always changed. And the climate is supposed to change. Tectonic plates are supposes to shift. The earth is supposes to revolve around its axis and around the sun.

Reducing emissions isn't going to do any harm, but it also isn't going to make a dime's worth of difference.

The point is, we don't mind conserving energy, researching new technologies, fighting pollution. We don't mind any of that.
What we mind is, being taken for complete idiots who are not supposed to know that the climate has always and consistently changed. Why are you so afraid of change?

Answer 10

Because every scientist that disagrees with it, the left finds a rope and hangs them. They are out there and they are many.

Consensus is not science.