Why do people want to disprove global warming? What do they have to gain?

Question

I am not going to debate if global warming is happening or not, but shouldnt we be looking to save our environment and rainforest anyway?

Havnt we been in an evironmental crisis since the beginning of the industrial age.?

Ultimatley shouldnt we be looking to move toward more sustainable solutions that dont harm the environment anyway despite global warming....

Isn't renewable energy our solution to dependency on foreign oil sources and fossil fuel?

How can anyone try to discredit the importance of sustainability, the environment and renewable energy in future societies?

Answer 1

All too true... I think people don't want to have to "cop" to the results of our actions, change and "be hassled" by doing what might be better for our environment or really just be bothered with any of it.

It seems pretty obvious that we have been destroying our environment everywhere you turn. Regardless if we were causing global warming or not, we still need to stop the destruction of all of the natural habitats of so many other creatures existing on this planet, stop ravaging the lands and using up all of these limited resources that we have and find ways to live and use resources that are replenishable enough to consider nearly limitless.

Answer 2

People try to disprove global warming for a number of reasons. They are tired of being shouted at and blamed. Environmentalists have been crying wolf for years, claiming that the world will end in less than two decades. To most people, this seems unrealistic and extreme. I doubt anyone believes that we aren't harming the environment, but they do not want to be blamed for it. I do not think blaming the public is the correct method for positive change. It is sad that these obnoxious radicals are the representatives of the global warming movement, and they most certainly hurt the cause.
Along with annoyance with certain organizations, few people see the affects of global warming. Polar bears may be drowning, and exotic birds dying out, but no one living in a first world country sees these things happening. Both directly and indirectly, developed countries are the reason for global warming. In order to convince them to trade their SUVs in for a bikes, they need to feel more connected with what is happening. In other words, living in the states, it is very easy to ignore the affects of global warming, or pretend that it's not even happening.
That being said, no one is discrediting the importance of sustainability or renewable energy. For the general public, money is the main motivation for change. It is one of the few things that affects them directly. Renewable energy will save money, therefore, it will most definitely catch on.

Answer 3

In the past various individuals and organisations mounted a campaign of discrediting the science of global warming in order to protect their own interests, The oil companies were a good example of this.

Despite the fact that they have now rescinded and accept global warming is a reality the rumours and scaremongering still exists. Only one scientific organisation still refutes global warming, all others accept it.

The consequence of the campaign against global warming is that some people fear in infringement of their liberties, increasing taxation and radical changes to their lifestyles. Understandably people are going to resent this and fight against it.

Countries that have faced up to global warming have shown that the reality is very different and most people are financially better off and have not had to change their lifestyles unless they voluntarily chose to do so.

There are of course a great many people who do not understand the environment - not because they're stupid but because environment isn't their forte and a lot of people aren't aware of the scale of the problems we're facing.

Six and a half billion people draining the Earth's resources is bound to have an effect. These same six and a half billion people need water, food, shelter, clothing, power, transport, communications, heating, light. All of this has to come from the surface of our planet and the very thin layer of atmosphere that surrounds it.

Answer 4

Three big reasons. Some carry a conservative ideology to extremes. If liberals or environmentalists or Al Gore says it, it must be wrong. Personally I think they should listen to Newt Gingrich, a true conservative by anyones standard.

"Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives Tuesday to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

Accepting global warming can be hard. It means accepting there are going to be changes in your life. People don't like to do that. Sometimes they deny the facts to avoid it.

In the real world (not so much here) some of the deniers are doing it because of money.

Answer 5

Well

One; global warming has yet to be proven, so disproving it is rather difficult.

and Two, I think the biggest draw to stand up and say "hey, global warming is a figment of your over active imagination" is, when a group of people try to change your life with ideas that are not factual or proven, one gets a little defensive. Smog checking like there is no tomorrow, increase gas prices by requiring higher gas standards, etc. And what is with this carbon credit, oh yeah, THAT'S gonna help.

Answer 6

There's nothing to disprove,there is a warming going on. Over time it will be followed by a cooling, which in turn will be followed by yet another warming and so on. There is nothing to panic about. The world as we know it will not end. We are not all going to perish as a result of this warming trend. Just about everything we understand to date has a pattern. This wave pattern occurs often in nature, including ocean waves, sound waves, and light waves.All of these can be graphed or illustrated with a sine wave, and as a result can then be monitored and analyzed. In the case of global temperature we just don't have enough accurate data yet to ''plot'' a pattern which would help us predict coming changes. Don't forget, the only accurate recorded data we have dates back only about 100 years, everything else is just theories and guesswork.

Answer 7

I , for one, see it as a waste of time and resource. The time , footwork and money (among other things) would be far better used , as you said, in other arenas. It is frustrating for me to be one of the disbelievers in Global Warming and see the 2+ acres A SECOND of rainforest go down for unsustainable farming. I would think the resources from GW as well as modern Agricultural practices could go a long way in slowing the rate of destruction. (as well as preserve untold capacity for scrubbing CO2 and producing Oxygen and preventing desertification and erosion.
That is my reason for trying to spread the mountains of facts disproving human/CO2 global warming. We are becoming a nation of sheep.
INFORMATIVE WEBSITES
www.friendsofscience.org
www.co2science.org
www.GlobalWarming.org
Oregon Petition
Junk Science
John Daly

Answer 8

I have no problem with curbing pollution (remember that CO2 is not a pollutant, scientifically at least)

Also I hope we strive to attain new and domestic energy.

Global warming is not solving pollution they are separate issues. We should not legislate CO2 caps which will destroy our economy and raise taxes, we should not give up our way of life for a vague notion that we are harming the planet.

Answer 9

If you thought our weekend was bad look at the weather across the water...

Freak snow, freezing temperatures and tropical storms across Europe are making the Bank Holiday washout here look almost pleasant.
In Spitzing in Germany, locals have been forced to wrap up after ten centimetres of snow brought out the snowploughs for the first time this year.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=458562&in_page_id=1811

+

Answer 10

It's very simple - we have to gain our freedom from bozos like you doubling the cost of our commutes and tripling our electric bills.

You use words like "sustainable" but those have meanings. They mean that for some objective reason we can't keep doing it the way we do it now.

Except that we can.

In a free society the burden of proof has to be on those wanting to slap limits on otherwise free productive activity to prove that it causes the harm in question - otherwise you can stop anyone from doing anything just by making things up about it.

And by proof I don't mean voting thumbs down on the guy asking for proof!

I mean proof!

And you have NONE!