Global Warming believers, what bothers you more?

Question

That you can not find any proof besides consesus, or that you can't get any support from the majority of the population?

Ohhhh you mean mass liberal media's polling data. You think that is accurate? No, I am sorry, I think you misunderstood me. I was actually serious.

wait? so your saying that those of us that do not believe that the earth is heating up beyond what is normal needs to prove a negative? Just by you claiming that it is happening it is true until we prove it wrong? Sorry bud, the burden of proof is on you.

So when the consesus was the world was flat, um...how did that work out for you?

Byderule, do you actually give an answer that is ever remotely different than your previous ones? or does paste work to well for you?

Answer 1

global warming is the biggest crock out there right now . in 1974 time magazine did a story on the next ice age saying that the world was cooling . now it's warming . give me a freaking break here . the earth is not some little fragile planet . it was here before any of us and will be here when we are all gone . I'll be damned if I'm gonna let a bunch of tree hugging do gooders stop me from living my life

Answer 2

worldwide warming is unquestionably happening. yet of direction what i think of you're digging at right this is are we the reason. that must be a no a minimum of in terms of being a considerable reason. The earth has cycled with the aid of many ice a while and warming classes of which none we've been to blame for. and to no longer leave out the certainty that our photograph voltaic device is likewise experiencing this comparable phenomenon. So i assume the pollution that we reason right here could be making it throughout the photograph voltaic device if this replaced into the case made by utilising those wackos. the actual reason has no longer been desperate yet yet theories have been made that are actually sound yet no longer proved. Now i'm no longer discounting the certainty we could be helping in an extremely very Small way. each little thing is a cycle and long as quickly as we are all ineffective and long previous those cycles will proceed right here in the worldwide properly a minimum of till the sunlight grow to be a crimson great then of direction there'll now no longer be a earth because it will be swallowed up.

Answer 3

< >>

so what you are saying, is if someone told you the milk in the fridge was spoiled and would make you sick, if you were to drink it, you would need proof before deciding not to drink it?
this whole global warming argument is very similar to the above situation.
Environmentalists are telling you the milk is spoiled and not to drink it.
skeptics are telling you there is no proof that the spoiled milk will make you sick.
you yourself are pouring yourself a big 'ol glass of it watching the clumps splash into a curdled mass resembling cottage cheese, wanting liquid chromotography performed on a sample before you believe it is harmful....so Bottoms up!
wake up!

we already know the factors attributed to global warming are harmful to the environment.
we already know that this is the only environment we have within several hundred thousand light years, that is habital by man.
we already know pollution causes more deaths and injuries every year than caused by terrorists on september 11th.

so why argue against doing something about it?
who cares about whether or not global warming is caused by man? regardless of whther it is or not, environmental damage caused by man is very real.

great explanation of consensus trevor. sometimes its hard not to take for granted, that some people do not truely understand what is being mentioned by a consensus.

<>
that was not a scientific consensus. that was more superstition, rumor, and uneducated guessing, like most arguments that claim we don't have to do anything about pollution.
the current procedures of the scientific method weren't even adopted at that time.

Answer 4

What bothers me is skeptics fabricating things to suit their own ends.

For example, those who don't understand what a consensus is and think that a consensus of scientists proves global warming doesn't exist. A consensus is a collective opinion based on agreement, testimony and proof. Without proof there is no consensus.

Also people who make wild unsubstantiated claims that global warming beleivers can't get support from the majority of the population when any rational person knows that the majority of the populuation view global warming as a serious threat to which mankind is the primary contributor. They conveneintly overlook worldwide opinion polls that show 92% of the world consider global warming to be a serious threat (by the way, that's 92% and climbing).

I wonder what bothers the skeptics the most...

A) They have been unable to find ANY credible scientific evidence to back up their claims despite repeated requests.

B) Every single government in the world agrees that global warming is a serious problem.

C) They have been deserted by every major oil company in the world as they know concede global warming to be a theat.

D) They repeatedly make themselves look foolish by spouting nonsensical arguments in support of their cause.

E) All of the above and more.

-------------------------

There have been a huge number of polls conducted regarding the public's opinions about global warming. They're conducted by a great many organisations in just about every country in the world - newspapers, magazines, TV shows, radio stations, polling organisations, political parties, large corporations, power companies, the list goes on. Here in the UK the professional polling organisations are closely monitored and scrutinised, they have to be impartial, the questions have to be unbiased and the poll conducted in such a way that it isn't weighted one way or another.

Those who say the world is not warming up beyond the norm need to look at the evidence and provide a credible explanation for the fact that the world is warming up many times faster than has ever before been known. We know why the world is warming up - it's simple science, it doesn't take a genuius to put two and two together and conclude that human activity is contributing to global warming.

Please don't reference the flat earth. This wasn't a scientific consensus at all, it wasn't something that had been studied. At the time that people beleived in a flat Earth it was because the current interpretation of the Bible told them the world was flat (four corners of the Earth, ends of the Earth, supporting pillars, heavens directly overhead etc). It was the scientists who questioned this, they conducted the experiments that showed the world wasn't flat. So again, it was the scientists who were correct.

Answer 5

The proof is in the scientific literature. You need to check the referenced articles from these two summaries:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

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

Scientists have done just that, and their verdict is overwhelming.

There is a massive scientific consensus. Every major scientific organization agrees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Virtually all climatologists agree:

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

Here's what scientists say about the consensus:

"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

The real question is why have deniers fallen for a few skeptics, whose arguments are refuted by the data.

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

Good websites for more info:

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

http://www.realclimate.org

"climate science from climate scientists"

Answer 6

I think the majority of the population (the sheep) like to believe it because it's shoved down their throats by mainstream media. HOWEVER, what they don't know or take into consideration is that the part of the cycle we are in now is only a minute portion of the grand scheme. There will come another ice age, another time of "global warming". The weather man can't even predict the weather correctly for the day... how in the hell are they going to be able to predict that the Earth is warming and will continue to warm because of pollution? Trends? Yeah, they can't even make weather models off of trends yet. When we can figure out how the weather is going to be every day for the next 10 years... then I'll believe that Bu11isht.

Answer 7

Sadly, the reason the majority of population do not want to support any major life changing challenge is precisely because of the unwillingness to give up our lifestile... our cars, our electic appliances, our international rendevouz... yes, most people don't want to believe that they could be harming the environment in any way. Yeah, it is easy to blame the current warming trend on how things have happened in past earth cycles, but you have to remember, it is only in the recent generations that we have all the stuff that contaminates, industry, electricity, cars, you name it. The rate in which the earth is warming this time around is not hundreds of years like in previous ages, it is in decades.

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that. I do think a lot of this, and it makes sense to believe that human activity has accelerated the inevitable. Yeah, it was gonna happen any way right? But this time, things might be different... this time, despite what happens, people will continue to drive their cars through hell... despite the earth being gray, despite no more polar bears... and the saddest part of all... let the non believers live a life of luxury while future generations inherit a trashed up world.

Answer 8

Why don't people like you just go populate mars or something.

I hope global warming's a farse so our grandbabies have a home.

Either way it's doing good to raise awareness and responsibility to the Earth.

It's like religion, even if it is a truck load of B.S., it's still doing a good thing for the population.

Answer 9

I doesnt bother me.. I think its entertaining that people will argue with me that things are perfect the way they are. Instead of people arguing about whether is exists or not, you cant deny we need to find alternative energy sources and not wait until we use ALL our natural resources, you cant deny we could pollute the Earth less... or do you like being an inconsiderate boob and leave a wasteland of an Earth for future generations...?

Answer 10

im bothered most by the greenie-weenies themselves. we do know things are warming up, but there is just no none nada zilch evidence that man is responsible for the warm up taking place this time. there have been many many warm ups before and yes the results of these warm ups can have serious consequences. and while it seems obvious man is playing a very big hand in this one, there just isnt any evidence to prove it, or really, evidence to suggest it with any degree of certainty

now with all that being said, of course we want to do everything we can to conserve resoources. AND what the guy above me said is true. he has a GREAT global view andf really does see the "big picture"!

i have to add one more thing. maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but one day this earth is going to run out of fossil fuels. and when that day comes, you will either see a world ill prepared to deal with it and turned upside down or a world that gets by, barely. if people only understood the importance of fossil fuels in their lives, well i think the would be bowing down to the exxon-mobiles of the world and wishing them all the best in exploration efforts as oppsed to condemning thier quarterly balance sheets. as the 3rd world comes on line and their appetite for crude grows up at astronomical rates the worlds supplys dwindle. supply and demad fella's and fellowette's that's all it comes down to!

Answer 11

neither one really, because the factors that are attributed to global warming are going to be dealt with one way or another, so it doesn't matter what people think.

Humans have, for far too long, lived irresponsibly, and it is catching up with us regardless of what you think about GW.
Anyone with any sense already accepts the facts that:
1) we can recycle pollutants
2) recycling that pollution to make energy is not going to devastate the economy
3)countries that have tighter emissions standards for autos are killing our auto market
4) The UN is becoming more involved and setting the wheels in motion to make human habits less damaging to the environment, so human living conditions will be more sustainable.

in other words, the GW argument is irrelevant, because the factors that contribute are going to be dealt with regardless of sad arguments skeptics try to use to prevent more environmentally friendly practices, so the biggest polluters can continue to reap record profits.