Because people would rather lie to themselves than face reality. If they acknowledge that global warming is 'real', they must also acknowledge that they have contributed to it. If they admit that their vehicle emissions, their disregard for the environment, and their ecologically bad habits are to blame for this potential disaster, they might have to also agree to changing their lifestyles...and they don't want to do that! They don't want to trade in their $70,000 gas-guzzling SUVs for fuel-efficient compacts; they don't want to go through the inconvenience of reUSING their Styrofoam cups over and over again, or reDUCING their own disposable waste, or reCYCLING their plastics, oil, paper, phone books, cardboard, glass, magazines, steel, newsprint, vegetable oil, and aluminum. We live in what everyone calls "a disposable society" and what we're really doing is disposing of the very planet on which we reside. -RKO- 05/10/09
2007-05-10 12:50:40
·
answer #1
·
answered by -RKO- 7
·
3⤊
1⤋
I think those who say global warming is false can be categorized in to the following:
1) Some are self serving and evil. They know global warming is real but because they somehow are benefiting from selling things that cause global warming and they just want to maximize their profits. They know they are damaging the climate for future generations but they are so selfish they just don't care what they are doing. Others that fall into this category are "scientists" accepting payment from mostly oil companies to go out and lie to the public. Others yet specialize in advertising and have designed an advertising program to deliberately mislead the public into thinking that global warming is not real, is controversial or is not well understood. I think what all these people are doing is extremely immoral and I think they in essence are criminals.
2) Some are just ignorant. They have been told by people from category 1 that global warming is false and bad for the economy. These folks are well meaning in their opposition but are also either too lazy or not well enough educated in technical subjects to be able to study actual facts of the issue and so they cannot tell lies from the truth. Global warming is a very technical subject and people who have not studied science at at least a college level simply do not have the background to be able to understand the issue. It is unfortunate that they are also unaware of their limitation. Mostly I do not fault these folks with one exception. Those who are answering questions on Yahoo Answers or otherwise actively trying to convince the public that global warming is not real are acting in a very irresponsible manner. They do not know what they are talking about and should be keeping their mouths shut.
It is my opinion that there is literally no one who understands the technical issues that actually believes that global warming is false. There are people who understand it and lie by saying it is false and there are people who simply don't understand but apparently think they do and say it is false.
2007-05-10 16:11:32
·
answer #2
·
answered by Engineer 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
A better term for "global warming" is "global climate change". Rising temperatures in one area will alter jet streams and such and lead to cooler areas in others. That's why some whacko conservatives use thermal data in some particular locations to try to downgrade the threat. Sure the warming is a natural process. But as far as we know, it's never been this rapid and all of our activities most certainly have a huge effect by accelerating this process.
There's still doubt because oil giants and their partners (which includes many people within the White House) would lose a lot of money if people start to drift towards alternative energy sources as opposed to oil. Factories and other industries will have to refit everything so that they're environmentally friendly. They don't want to comply since refitting their operations will cost them money. Less money --> more complaining.
People are simply too lazy to change. Any lack of convenience is enough of an incentive NOT to go green.
"In 100 years, the temperature has risen 2 degrees. Yes 2 degrees."
2 degrees Celsius is HUGE. It may not seem like much, but when you think of the average temperature around the whole world rising like that, that is A LOT of additional energy within just 100 years.
"The scientists have found that by scaring everybody, they get more research grants."
Ok... so there's only one right answer? It's either lie and say there's nothing wrong happening... or tell the truth and be accused of making up stuff for more money? I thought is was a scientist's job to tell us something we don't know and if there's something that needs to be changed. Then there's people who say there's not enough evidence for climate change... shouldn't we then fund research to solidify the arguments? Such contradictory arguments!
"I'm also wary of any religious-like devotion to a cause that is unproven and (coincidentally) followed by those who happened to be left-wing anti-capitalists and socialists."
Climate change is scientific consensus. Any dissent is by "scientists" paid off by the Bush Administration and oil giants to oppose everyone else
By the way... not all left-wingers are anti-capitalists and socialists... That would be like all right-wingers are rednecks that think torture is ok when that's supposedly why we needed to stop Saddam Hussein... Congratulations, you just made yourself look like an idiot.
Climate change is real and we have to take just a slightly more conscious approach to it. We don't really need that much more effort. Any short-term costs will definitely make up for itself in the long-term.
2007-05-10 13:49:52
·
answer #3
·
answered by woot5876 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
The big industrialists in USA paid a lot of money for media and scientists to try to prove that there is no such thing as Global Warming.
American Government afraid of loosing the economic growth it was seeing, and due to electoral reasons too accepted the biast vue.
Nevertheless, the last science meeting in Europe included plenty of Americans and they all agreed that we should do something about Global Warming.
By the way, USA has the highest per capita contribution to Global Warming, it is also the highest producer of CO2.
2007-05-10 13:00:19
·
answer #4
·
answered by pickup_lb 3
·
2⤊
1⤋
I 100% agree with them ! serbian scientist milutin Milankovic explained it perfectly ... In a long period of time of Earth traveling around the Sun there comes a time where it's path gets a little closer to the Sun ... So it's hotter than anyone remembers because such things happen once in a million years !
2016-05-20 00:31:39
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
You misunderstand. Global climate change is very real. Just as real as it was millions of years ago before humans existed. The question is whether humans are the cause, and all first hand data says NO.
Global warming alarmists rarely if ever use hard data, but rather meta analyses of other meta analyses, etc. A meta analysis is very simple to slant in whatever way the author wants, because he chooses what data to include and exclude. Only with these types of studies does any evidence arise.
In short, human intervention in the climate is only provable through human intervention in the data.
Remember how 30 years ago these same alarmists were raising hell over an impending doom due to a new ice age? This was using the same data and the same tactics.
Do yourself a favor and go to Youtube or Google Video and watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle" for a little more information.
Just because you shout louder, doesn't mean you're right.
2007-05-10 12:37:32
·
answer #6
·
answered by comotegustamipenga 1
·
2⤊
4⤋
I did a report on global warming and there is substantial evidence that people would believe it doesn't exist. I don't really remember what it said at the moment. I don't agree with it but I realize that there IS evidence to support that view point. But, really, whether or not it exists [which IT DOES], we still need to make changes to help the environment.
2007-05-10 13:39:00
·
answer #7
·
answered by Alice 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
The Earth goes through cycles in its tilt angle as it circles the sun each year. The sun too has cycles of sun spots. Our solar system in its orbit of the galaxy has cycles of radiation. All these things have an effect on us, including the sun's using up its energy and becoming a red star. Compound this with volcanoes, earth quakes and chemical changes brought on by all life forms and we can understand we humans are just a drop in the bucket. We could be in a major warming or entering a new ice age. Our record keeping is over just a short period of time and at best we are poor evaluators - just look at weather reports for today to actual results. Heck I was told over the last two years the north east was in for major hurricanes - WRONG
There are always NAY sayers it gives them a platform to be noticed. Now go burn some rubber and have your AC running on high - we live once - you can be happy or you can dedicate yourself to following conflicting information
2007-05-11 00:30:48
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
The two main reasons are:
1. There is no conclusive scientific proof that a problem exists.
2. The high profile proponents of "Global Warming" are the biggest hypocrites on the planet.
There you go, so simple even a liberal can understand it.
2007-05-10 14:39:18
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
I do not believe that there is enough information to to conclude that the globe is warming. We only have acurate tempuratres relating back maybe 200 hundred years at best and the earth has been around for millions of years. I do not believe that 200 years of records is enough to make a blanket statement that the globe is warming. True, the average temerature may have increased in the last 200 years but that means nothing in the grand scheme of things. In 50 years the scientists may come out and say that the globe is cooling but again I caution you that this is not enough information to base such a theory on. We need tens of thousands of years of data to even come close to making such a claim.
2007-05-10 12:31:10
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
4⤋