Why do people blindly support global warming as a fact, what motivates them?

Question

Far to often we come in contact with those who having done no research are ready to believe everything they hear, providing it's "Green Friendly". If it doesn't fit their ideology it can't possibly be correct because it won't propogate their agenda.

Answer 1

Several reasons, depending on who you are. If you're an average person, like the people I encounter every day, you are someone looking for a place to belong. Agreeing with teh global warming theory, you have instant comraderie and friendship with others who agree with global warming theories. Also, a little deeper, people need to feel like their are worthwhile, like they make a difference. By espousing "green" living, they can be made to feel like their "changing the world" and get a self esteem boost from that feeling. Most global warming believers I have met fit that category. They simply have yet to realize their own potential as human beings and so cling to the idea that global warming will destroy us and that they are making a difference. The reality is that they can make a difference on a human scale every day, by addressing REAL human suffering, and REAL and IMMEDIATE human needs. Buying into global warming is easy and it gives one a feeling superiority over those of us who choose to look at it objectively. Reaching out, caring for people and their REAL needs is sometimes difficult and not nearly as popular.

Answer 2

To the contrary, it's the global warming skeptics that are driven by ideology. The wail about Gore (who has nothing to do with the data). They make arguments (it's the sun) that are clearly refuted by the data.

The proponents are driven by the data. The data is why most all scientists and virtually every major scientific organization accept global warming as fact.

"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”

Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)
Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut and the first Commander of the Naval Space Command

Which is why:

"Regardless of these spats, the fact that the community overwhelmingly supports the consensus is evidenced by picking up any copy of Journal of Climate or similar, any scientific program at the AGU or EGU meetings, or simply going to talk to scientists (not the famous ones, the ones at your local university or federal lab). I challenge you, if you think there is some un-reported division, show me the hundreds of abstracts at the Fall meeting (the biggest confernce in the US on this topic) that support your view - you won't be able to. You can argue whether the consensus is correct, or what it really implies, but you can't credibly argue it doesn't exist."

Dr. James Baker - NOAA

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know - except maybe Newton's second law of dynamics.
Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point,You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."

Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA

Good websites for more info:

http://profend.com/global-warming/

http://www.realclimate.org

"climate science from climate scientists"

Answer 3

There's no fair way to lump "people" into an such broad category. Many people who support global warming have studied the data and looked at the backgrounds of those who supply the data.

What I really want to know is the reason why some people get so defensive about the topic. Believing that global warming is or is not happening does not change the actual situation, no matter which turns out to be true. If we err on the side of caution, which is a better idea?

First approach: I think global warming is happening, so I will make choices that reduce my carbon dioxide contribution. In doing so, I use fewer resources so they last longer for everyone, I use less fuel in my car and energy in my home so I save myself money, I put less pollution in the air for my kids to deal with.

Second approach: I think global warming is a hoax propagated by self-interested politicians and tree-hugging liberals. But I have enough sense to know that resources are limited and I'm not going to use them all up any more than I am going to spend all the money in my wallet just because I can. I've got better things to spend my money on than gasoline and electricity, so I cut back on those and pay for my kids' college education. Maybe I don't care about pollution, but when I do the other things I accidentally generate less pollution. Gee, I came out ahead all around.

Third approach: I don't know what to believe about global warming, but I'm going to cut back on my carbon dioxide emissions because ... it saves resources, it saves me money, and it keeps the air cleaner. How can I lose?

Answer 4

They only see what the media serves them. That's how most people base their opinions.

It's like the computer. Most people use it for email, games, IM and porn. But when it comes to viruses, etc, they just don't know. Anything wrong to them is a "virus", even if your computer is just defragmented. But, they just read what's online and don't actually investigate and research it.

People generally lead themselves in with the blind since they are as well. It's a sad truth but most of the world is full of followers, not leaders.

Do people know that the hole in the ozone layer is actually repairing itself? NO! It's been barely advertised by the media. Instead, they take sides with Al Gore and the likes because it's famous. That's why I barely watch the news... it's biased no matter what they say.

Maybe one day people will come to conclusions for themselves instead of having others choose their opinions for them. But until then...

We gotta live in this world and make the best of it.

And no matter what, going "green" actually doesn't save you money. You have to pay the upscale of prices. Hybrids are expensive. Yet, IRS pays back for it but it's not enough to cover the cost overall. If a Kia was "green", then people'd be buying into it.

Anything that's "green" actually costs more money. They tell you to check your tires, get tune-ups, etc a LOT on your car. Okay? Now figure in the cost of actual gas you're wasting without a tune-up, etc and you'll see that you pay more for a tune-up to make it "green". $70 for a tune-up for every 6 months, $170 a year and how much gas am I wasting? $20. Sorry. Tune-up ONCE a year I prefer.

In reality, nobody really cares about "green" except the politicians that's jumping on the bandwagon. Think of how many people you know that chaged because of the "global warming" that's been taught for years but finally it's a big hit because of that bandwagon. How many? Not many changed and those who got hybrids still waste in other ways. They just wanted the neatest and coolest gadget and yet still pay a fortune and they still throw away plastic. Ironic, isn't it?

Answer 5

Personally I have believed in what people now call "Global Warming" for almost 30 years. Doing two university degrees in Physics and Geophysics brought me into contact with many opportunities to understand the energy balance of the environment. I can be best described as a Deep Ecosocial Egalitarian Epistemologist; my motivation is two-fold:

1. A pursuit of the truth in all matters
2. Self preservation and preservation of that which preserves me ...

In other words, I hope for the best but prepare for the worst in a world where hairless apes play God and believe that gives them the right to consume indescriminantly without consequence. That is my only agenda.

Those who choose to stick their head in the sand and refuse to contribute to the global human community are a tax on our species. Truth is the intersection of knowledge and belief. Until you combine the two you only speak in opinions, not facts.

Do not depend on the media to force feed you their "truth". Go find out the truth for yourself and stop being so naive.
.

Answer 6

Isnt it obvious? Its been very hot in the past few summers. It IS a proven fact that lots of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes global warming. The people of earth know that massive amounts of greenhouses gases causes the earth to heat up. It is a proven fact. People are motivated to do something because Earth is our only home and we want to protect it. Another reason is, wouldn't someone like to go through a cooler summer?

Answer 7

Schools. Some geography lessons, and even some science ones too, go on for literally hours about how humans are the cause of global warming, while forgetting to mention the fact that the Earth's temperature has never been constant. This is basically brainwashing, and this generation is being forced to accept speculation as fact and being frowned upon if their actions aren't green enough.

Answer 8

I'm afraid that the opinions of most humans are strongly shaped by their prejudices, political and religious. Their opinions are so strongly shaped by their prejudices that they cannot even see that they are prejudices.

There is an objective truth to the global warming debate, and that truth is *very* important. That truth can be glimpsed, with difficulty, through the scientific method. The scientific method is open to everyone, but is best practiced by scientists, who have years of training in applying it.

Answer 9

But there are people who have done research and believe it is happening. That happens to be majority of scientific community.

So you actually go climate research yourself? Have funding? Have research staff? Publish papers?

Or you just read about it like most of us?

If you think global warming is not happening then that's fine with me. But it won't get you anywhere if you just accuse people of being ignorant or 'blind' to facts.

This stuff is politicized enough as it is.

Answer 10

I have yet to find a single person who 'blindly supports global warming as fact'. In fact, the only people I've seen who blindly accept anything about it are those who've been suckered by the pseudo-skeptic opponents of the theory.