Why do people believe the global warming propaganda?

Question

Very informative video
http://www.flixya.com/al-gores-nightmare-global-warming-myth-exposed

http://oldsouthviews.blogspot.com/2007/06/global-warming-hoax.html

Answer 1

There seems to flaw in the human psyche and a sizeable number always think the worst and think the world revolves around them. The global warming movement is pushed by those that overwhelming know far less than they think, generally think mankind is a destructive influence, are governed by guilt, and try to make others feel guilty as well.

Answer 2

Before reading too much into the video you linked to it may be worth remembering that it's produced and presented by 'The Internet Skeptic' otherwise known as Steve Milloy. I won't say anthing about him here but a quick search will reveal some interesting facts and should make you realise that he is perhaps not the most reliable or impartial source of information concerning global warming.

I could tell you that he receives financial and editorial support from the oil and tobacco industries but you'll be able to establish this for yourself when you do those searches.

One of the reasons that people beleive global warming is because the arguments put forward by the skeptics do not stand up to scrutiny and in many cases are fabrication, distortion and sometimes blatant lies. If someone has to resort to lies and distortions to support their argument then it only serves to illustrate that there's no evidence available to support their claims.

The arguments in the case for global warming can be traced back to their scientific origins. The arguments against global warming can only ever be traced back to a media report or internet site, never to anything based on credible fact or science.

Try it for yourself, see how many arguments you can find that oppose global warming and have a credible scientific origin.

Answer 3

till now reading too lots into the video you related to it could be properly worth remembering that it fairly is produced and presented via using 'the cyber web Skeptic' in any diverse case extensive-unfold as Steve Milloy. I won't say anthing approximately him precise right here yet a speedy seek for will tutor some exciting documents and could make you already know that he's probably now no longer the extra proper good or self sustaining source of techniques proper to international warming. i could help you be attentive to that he gets financial and editorial help from the oil and tobacco industries yet you would be waiting to confirm this for your self as quickly as you do those searches. between the reasons that persons beleive international warming is with the aid of the fact the arguments placed forward via using the skeptics do now no longer stand up to scrutiny and in an incredible style of circumstances are fabrication, distortion and customarily blatant lies. If somebody has to lodge to lies and distortions to help their argument then it purely serves as an party that there's no documents attainable to help their claims. The arguments indoors the case for international warming could precise be traced back to their scientific origins. The arguments against international warming can purely ever be traced back to a media checklist or counsel superhighway cyber web website, on no account to a minimum of a few thing consistent with credible fact or technological counsel. attempt it for your self, see what volume arguments you will discover that oppose international warming and function a respected scientific beginning off place.

Answer 4

Because it's what the science says. You might do well to listen to Newt:

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

This is a pretty good website for clear explanations of the science:

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

Answer 5

Because, if you break both sides of the argument down, here is what they are on a more basic level:

1) we must do something to conserve resources, and limit pollution damage of the environment, or

2) we can continue to pollute, because pollution doesn't damage the environment, even if it did, reducing pollution would devastate the economy.

now here are a list of facts, from the facts, figure out which argument is more sound:
a) pollution does damage the environment and causes health problems, and more deaths a year than caused by terrorist in New York on 9/11.
b) autos that have reduced emissions are killing American auto makers, which seems to be much harder on American economy than reducing emissions, so is outsourcing to communist countries.
c) recycling waste saves money for industries that can use the raw product created by that waste.
d) the Earth is a finite environment with a finite amount of resources.

Answer 6

because people listen to the media and the so called experts portrayed on it, they don't research it themselves. however i don't think that everyone believes the propaganda. and the truth is out there, for example the program 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' which was shown on the BBC a couple months ago.

Answer 7

Even smart neocons believe propaganda because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for stupid reasons. Global warming is just one example. Iraq is another.

Answer 8

Many reasons. Some think it's a natural warming/cooling cycle, others think it was man-caused or that we are accelerating the natural cycle.

With all the horrible emissions world-wide, how could you think otherwise.

Answer 9

Here this film is even better it's only part 1 this is for intelligent people who would like to get educated not just go with the media flow!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=8f8v5du5_ag

Answer 10

Maybe because this is the first time in world history that the polar icecaps are melting away. I don't think you need to be an expert to have common sense.

I think you're only looking for one sided answers that agree with your political views. Maybe you should have narrowed your question down by adding "My fellow neocons, ...." to the beginning of it, and changing the word "people" to "liberals".

Just a suggestion.