why do people get so defensive about global warming being real?

Question

anyone who calls it 'liberal pseudo science' etc always seem so angry and upset that anyone could believe it. Study after study from all over the world have shown that its not just cyclical or natural any more. My real question is, why do you get so angry about it? Whats so hard to believe about the fact that we are in an advanced industrial society and this could happen?

Answer 1

Two big reasons.

One is politics. The message about global warming is coming from people that some other people don't like. If Al Gore says it, it must be wrong.

Second, if global warming is real, people are going to need to make changes. People don't like change.

Minor reason. Some people like to see conspiracies in things.

Addressing two things above.

The swindle movie is scientifically nonsense.

The director made a similarly silly movie in 1997, which compared environmentalists to Nazis. Channel 4 had to issue a public apology for that one.

"Against Nature argues that greens in First World countries are responsible for the deprivation and death of millions of children in the Third World. In their callous disregard for human welfare and their fetishism of nature, greens, it maintains, are not merely conservative, but fascist, drawing their inspiration from precisely the same ideologies as the Nazis. It would be laughable, had it not been given three hours of prime time TV."

http://www.videonetwork.org/stuff/againstnature.html

This one is similar in quality.

" A Channel 4 documentary claimed that climate change was a conspiratorial lie. But an analysis of the evidence it used shows the film was riddled with distortions and errors."

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece

Even Channel 4 doesn't believe that nonsense is correct. If you go to their website, on the page for the film are links to factual global warming sites. You can "Ask an Expert" and your question goes to a respected mainstream scientist who says man is mostly responsible for global warming.

The sun may be responsible for the other planets, but it's not the main cause of global warming on Earth.

Actual data shows it's not the suns radiation that's the major cause of global warming on Earth, it's us. Solar radiation is carefully measured. Climatologists include it in their analysis.

The results are in the report below. Increased solar radiation is 0.12 watts per meter squared. Man's warming is 1.6 watts per meter squared, more than ten times as much.

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

What scientists think. Not from the "liberal" media.

""While evidence suggests fluctuations in solar activity can affect climate on Earth, and that it has done so in the past, the majority of climate scientists and astrophysicists agree that the sun is not to blame for the current and historically sudden uptick in global temperatures on Earth, which seems to be mostly a mess created by our own species."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258342,00.html

Gore's data about sea level rise includes what would happen if the ice caps melt. For various reasons the IPCC report did not include that in their projections. They say so. Could that happen? Yes. Is it scientifically proven? No, which is why it's not in the report, which is basically a very conservative analysis of the science.

Answer 2

It is not that there is not a belief that an advanced industrial society cannot affect the world around it but that the science behind "Global Warming" is not sound. Global warming is a Theory like the "big Bang" theory that can be argued for or against rationally.

There are two examples - First is that not just EARTH is warming but MOST planets in our solar system are experiencing temperature increases.

Second is that there is a thing called "cyclical weather patterns" that have been studies by NASA. They seem to show patterns to the dramatic increases and decreases in temperatures of our planet.

The one element that helps generate the emotion is that the "Global Warming" and the "Hole in the ozone layer" is being made into a political platform. Those defending global warming and it's questionable science make statements like .... “Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future,”
Don't you think that will piss off a few people.

Gore himself doesn't practice what he preaches.
"Last August, the Gore mansion burned more than twice the electricity in a single month as the average American family uses in an entire year."

I don't mind debates based on scientific fact... but Global warming has been tranformed into a vicious attack of convience for some people waving the banner.

Answer 3

It isn't that it is real or not alone that irks people, but rather the consequences of whether it is real or not.,

For instance, I smoke. I have a medical background and understand the probable consequences of my smoking. So, I have no factual basis to say, "Smoking is harmless." However, for emotional (read addiction) reasons, I am unwilling to change my behavior. I might, for this reason - the emotional basis - accept arguments that are pro smoking (like, 'everyone doesn't get cancer') and put my energy into those. This is more easily possible because the consequences of the next cigarette are not immediately noticeable.

What I am protecting is my own sense of self- looking too closely just pokes at a thing (my emotional commitment) that I do not wish to have poked.

So, there are two elements that gives you this strong emotional reaction with global warming. The first is the sense that we as humans, doing human things, may be at fault. The second is that we are good at and successful (at least in our current eyes) with our current behavior in place and loath to change it. Any argument or set of facts that seem to suggest we should change what we are doing is seen as an attack on our sense of self- the 'who I am now'.

You can map in on the people who, fully informed and by choice, live too close to the volcano. Sure, scientists say it will eventually erupt, but so what? It's not erupting now.

And I don't have cancer yet. Smoke break anyone?

Answer 4

I don't get angry until one of the true believers calls me an idiot for being skeptical. This usually takes all of 15 seconds of discussion.

I also find that people who are true believers do not want to here what are logical, thought out, arguments that have some standing within the peer reviewed literature. As soon as I start talking about what I have read in actual journals (not Science, Discover, or any of the popular science mags) they dismiss my arguments out of hand as being disproven or irrelevant, without so much as giving me any info to back up their claims.

I find the true beleivers are the ones that will generally spark up the conversation about AGW, especially when they feel they are in a crowd of like minded people. They seem to be genuinely mortified that not everyone thinks as they do. This is such a jolt to their world view that they resort to insults, vitriol, and baseless arguments after minimal discussion.

Answer 5

The whole global warming issue to me stinks. I expect science questions to be answered by science, not by you saying you should believe it because "all the top scientists believe it". What they are saying is if all the top scientist believe it you should too and DO NOT QUESTION THE SCIENCE. 30 years ago ago all of the top scientists were saying we were heading for another ice age. Well they were wrong. Galileo was right and all of the other scientists were wrong. Consensus is not proof.

Then there is this naive notion that we can reduce co2, without there being any economic consequences. Is there a study that supports this claim? The way you decrease energy consumption is by increasing its price. High energy costs is not a condition for a healthy economy. Its means unemployment, and hardship. Are you saying I should not care of the economic well being of my neighbour? That is just to meet the targets set by Kyoto. Now they are saying that is not enough. We must reduce it by 80%. That means bye bye cars, planes, appliances. That is going to set humanity back a century. Solar and wind power is not yet reliable. If it becomes reliable, I will not care.

You can have all of the scientific theories, but the theories have to be backed by evidence. Do you know of anybody who has had to leave their homes due to rising sea levels? As of today, temperature have risen 0.6 degrees Celsius in the past 150 years. According to the models that the fear mongering is going on, that should be a lot more. Temperatures in the South Pole have DECREASED during the past 50 years.

Then I read the literature. They write "Studies show", without saying the study. They counter criticisms with theories without backing it up with evidence.

If you do a poll of environmentalists they support the cutting of co2, even if there is no global warming. That is their utopia. That view is back up by Patrick Moore, environmentalist and the co-founder and father of Greenpeace. He knows these people well. He worked with them, and left because they do not care about human suffering. In his words they are anti-human. When someone tries to force their utopia on me, I get defensive. Especially when there are a lot of holes in their theory.

Answer 6

You need to be open minded --- as we should all be when it comes to important issues. Don't simply accept what is said. Don't put up with people (like Dems) who will NOT let hundreds of scientists talk.

And, READ the other side of the issue. Then draw your conclusions.

Also, Don't let Dems or those who would get rich by "solving" global warming fool you into thinking that they aren't out to get rich.

Read "The Politically Inocorrect Guide to Global Warming." THEN decide for yourself. You'll be smart enough to evaluate BOTH sides.

Articles are coming out in newspapers in England where scientists are saying it is either hogwash or not proven or doubtful.

WHY WOULD GORE SAY IN HIS MOVIE THAT THE SEAS ARE GOING TO RISE 20 FEET? That is a lie!! Scientists talk about a handful to several inches --- NOT 20 FEET.

Why would Gore blow his credibility like that???

Answer 7

There's a few problems, the main one though is that people fear change, and this means change. They also fear the magnitude of change required, because they think it will mean money out of their pockets.

Either way, the thing I find most fascinating is that noone seems to deny it anymore, we all see Climate Change happening, there's just different theories on what's causing it. Though in the end we should figure out what is causing it and what we can do, because we either change the planet or we're forced to change our lifestyles, or we just go extinct basically.

Whatever the cause, and whatever the science, we see it happening, and we have to change something. Be it us or the environment.

Answer 8

Global warming and climate change adversely affects all of us; it impacts on us as individuals, on businesses, governments, societies. It would be much easier and far more beneficial to all concerned if global warming weren't happening.

It may be uncomfortable to accept, but we have all contributed to global warming both directly and indirectly. Acknowledging global warming means accepting and taking responsibility for being part of the problem and some people may be reluctant to do so. To confront the issue means making changes in our lives and understandably some people are also reluctant to do this.

Changes are going to be expensive, people will be inconveneinced, there may be additional taxes, changes will be needed in our lifestyles and we may have to make sacrifices, these things aren't particularly paletable and naturally people are going to fight against it.

Further, individuals don't like to admit to being wrong and despite the overwhelming evidence there are bound to be people who chose to believe anything that supports their viewpoint no matter how flawed that evidence is.

It's much easier for organisations to admit they got it wrong and in recent years we've seen this happeneing a lot. So much so that every government and every major oil company in the world now acknowledges global warming.

In time many more people will come to accept global warming. America is the only country where as many as 1 in 5 people don't consider global warming to be a serious problem and that's largely because it's not been an issue in the US until comparatively recently. Outside the US there's another advantage in that it's not so much a political issue and people have been able to make up their own minds without having it rammed down their throats. When you've got the politicians and media trying to force something on you there's bound to be resentment.

Answer 9

I don't get angry,I'm just a little skeptical of it.I'm not saying I don't believe it's happening,I actually think it's highly possible.I just choose not to make a conviction until I have enough information.I don't want to be one of those people arguing for environmentalism when I know nothing about it.Like Nietzsche says,"The best way to defeat a cause is to make bad arguements for it."I don't think that's the exact quote,but it's the same idea.Would you want someone like me who's ignorant of the situation to back your ideals?I don't think so.

Answer 10

People get defensive about it because the countermeasures to global warming will be expensive. While global warming is pretty much proven, our ability to reverse it is not. So, I think some people don't want to hurt the economy on something that might not work anyway.

I think people who look at it this way are greedy and short-sighted. For example, our reliance on fossil fuels will be reduced in the future whether we like it or not. The choice is do we choose to develop other energy sources now, or do we wait until fossil fuels are no longer available, and supply and demand forces us to?