Why do people still try to debate global warming?

Question

I don't why there are so many people that still try to debate global warming. The debate is over, it is real and it's time to start figuring out what we're going to do about it then do it.

Answer 1

It may be worth putting it into perspective. The global warming skeptics can be quite vocal but they're in a small minority. For example... 86% of Americans support joining the G8 on climate change [1] and 90% of the world's population view climate change a serious problem, outside of the US the figure is higher [2].

Another point worth bearing in mind is that climate change isn't something new. It was way back in 1896 that the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius first established the links between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, something that had first been considered as far back as 1811. During 100+ years of climate research the subject was a scientific one and there was no disputing that it was real. The disputes only began when the issue became a politician one and non-experts became involved.

The question you ask is something I've often thought about and have spoken to all sorts of people as to why this might be - including the skeptics themselves, psychologists and others who can provide an insight. It seems there is no simple answer.

There are some people who genuinely do not believe climate change is occurring, others believe that it's entirely natural and nature should be left to run it's course. Perhaps this is the result of the misinformation and discrediting campaign that was mounted by some governments, oil companies and other large organisations.

For decades scientists had been warning governments about the implications of climate change but the pleas fell on deaf ears or were deliberately ignored. By the last 80's and early 90's the evidence was so overwhelming that it could no longer be ignored. Some governments began to listen and reluctantly accepted that something needed to be done.

This immediately met with resistance from those who stood to lose financially if climate change became accepted and as a result they began a campaign of discrediting the science. They engaged their own professionals to question the evidence and find fault wherever possible. As a result there were a lot of fallacies that began circulating.

Today of course things have changed, every government in the world accepts climate change is a serious issue, as does every major oil company, every major organisation and every credible scientific organisation bar one (the American Association of Petroleum Geologists). This has left the skeptics isolated as they can no longer rely on the support or big business or governments.

It's easy for a faceless organisation to do an about turn because no one can point a finger and accuse it of hypocrisy, individuals can always claim they supported the theory of climate change all along. This isn't so easy for individuals who will lose face if they admit to having been wrong; consequently they continue to follow the same line as they always did.

There are of course some people who don't really understand global warming and climate change. What limited knowledge they have of the subject leads them to conclude that it's not serious, not real, made up by governments to raise taxes, invented by Al Gore so he can sell carbon credits etc.

There's also something called the psychology of denial. Basically, don't admit to being part of the problem and you don't have to deal with the consequences. This is what people do when arrested for a crime, they know they're wrong but deny any wrongdoing in the hope of getting away with it.

Also on a psychological level is something called diffusion of responsibility. The concept being, there's plenty of other people who will deal with it so I'm not going to get involved. A good example of this is when someone collapses in the street. Most people when asked say they will go to the aid of someone in such a situation, but in real life very few do preferring to let someone else deal with it.

Certain approaches to denial manifest themselves in the form of a schoolyard argument. The person is wrong but believes they're right, in order not to have to accept that they're wrong they become blind and deaf to the truth. In schoolchildren the approach is often to cover their ears and start shouting or singing - it's a way to cut themselves off from something they don't want to face up to. In adults the approach is to dismiss what they don't want to believe in; something that is regularly seen on this forum. For example, an answer is provided that doesn't conform to a skeptic’s viewpoint and rather than address the points raised they respond by criticising the persons spelling or launching into a personal attack.

Ultimately there could be any number of reasons why people reject global warming and climate change. Subsequent polls show that the number of non-believers is falling and in time the number will probably get smaller and smaller. Just as with the flat-earth concept, there will come a time when the evidence is so overwhelming that it's impossible to refute and anyone attempting to do so will open themselves up to ridicule.

[1] http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/btenvironmentra/79.php?nid=&id=&pnt=79
[2] http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/btenvironmentra/187.php?nid=&id=&pnt=187
More survey results
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/cgi-bin/MT/mt-search.cgi?index=220573&search=climate+change
http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm

Answer 2

Some are conservatives who carry ideology to an extreme. If liberals, or environmentalists, or worst yet, Al Gore say something it must be wrong.

That may change as more conservatives accept that it's real and mostly caused by us:

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

3DM gets more and more reasonable by the day. For him - the point is that most of the world accepts that it's been proven enough to start doing something about it, but there are a minority of noisy dissenters (including a few who have power) to interfere.

Answer 3

There is NO broad topic that is closed to debate in science. None. Anyone who cannot understand this concept should think twice before claiming that science supports their cause.

There is nothing that is stopping you from doing your part to help the environment. If the consensus is that fossil fuel use is causing global warming, then by all means, reduce or stop using fossil fuels. If there is such an overwhelming majority of people that believe this - such that the "debate is over" - than it should be easy to make a dent in it - SOON! Quit talking like someone else has to solve the problem for you.

Answer 4

I think it is because people know in the past the globe has naturally cooled and warmed through the ages and feel the warming trend is 'natural occurrence'. However the scientific community now believes 90% of global warming is caused by humans, which is quite overwhelming and cannot be dismissed. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have reached record highs (as a result of atmospheric pollution since the industrial revolution) and we know carbon dioxide retains the suns heat that enters the earths atmosphere (the natural greenhouse effect). Global temperatures have risen so dramtically over the the last 200 years compared to the natural variations throughout history, so there is definately a link between increases in carbon dixiode levels in the atomoshphere and temperature increases over the last 200 years. Thats why I truly believe global warming over this period has been caused by humans. This is a concern because the earth has never experienced such a large rise in temperature over a short period of time, so our ecosytems will not be able to adapt in time and low lying communities will be flooded by increases in sea levels. I hope this answer has been beneficial to you!

Answer 5

I agree with you initial question, I don't see why anyone is debating global warming anymore. The proponents of global warming have had over 20 years(they said the oceans would have flooded all our coastal cities by now) to produce evidence that global warming exists but have not come through at all yet. However the upside is that the trend is that people are believing it less and less each day. I hope they keep up the good work of their misinformation, it's really been helping allot.

Answer 6

The reason that the debate is still going on is that it is not a closed issue. The claims that a majority of scientists support it is false. The fact that large numbers of partisan politicians, activists and members of the media keep repeating this falsehood only obscures the true complexity of the issue.
To clarify, those advocating that we 'do something' about global warming continuously confuse the phenomenon of warming, with human causation of that warming.
The warming of the earth by one degree over the past 150 years is a proven fact that even those opposed to global warming hype agree with. As are phenomenon such as melting glaciers and polar ice.
These facts are then extrapolared into a belief that humans have caused this through their activities. This is where the arguments of the activists leave scientific evidence behind.
While it is obvious that greenhouse gases contribute to global warming, the extent to which they do so is still undetermined. It may be 50%, it may be 1%, it maybe 0.01% There is no way to acuratly determine which it is. The studies that showed a nice neat correlation between CO2 levels and temperature have been shown to have had serious problems with methodology and the statistical method used to analyse the data. They are no longer regarded as valid by most scientists, though they are repeated trotted out by activists, (including Al Gore) to 'prove' their point.
There are many theories about causation, from natural climate cycles, to deforestation, to increrased solar flare activity. None of them, including the pollution/GHG theory have been accepted as a primary cause of warming by scientists specializing in those areas of study.
I stress the conclussions of scientists working in their own specialties because often on politally charged issues like the environment or nuclear power there are self-described organizations of scientists, generally made of activist social scientists that issue pronouncements on hard science issues.
Most of the alarmist global warming scenarios are based on computer models that rely on statistical analysis of data. These models were generally developed whithout the aid of a specialized statistician and have been criticized by statisticians for using inaccuate algoriths. This just one example, but if most statisticians have a problem with a model, I really don't care how many sociologists or cultural anthropologists like it's conclusions.
If you look at the conclusions of the majority of scientists doing climate related work in there own fields, the argument that humans are wholely, or even primarily responsable is not yet, and may never be, supported by a majority.
Most of the arguments for human causation of warming are traced back to government appointed panels and commities.
Even when they are made up of scientists, instead of politicians and activists, there tends to be a lack of individuals who are currently doing work on global warming.
Beyond this consideration, if you actually read the research that their reports are based on you'll discover that in many cases broad, general statements, 'the Earth is warming', 'CO2 levels may play a role', are restated by activists as 'CO2 is the cause of global warming' who then tack on the 'all scientists agree' label to a statement that no scientist, much less "all scienists" would agree with.

Answer 7

The debate is not that there is global warming. The debate is ...am I the cause, is the world going to end....

No debate about it. We all need to conserve and be environmentally conscience.

Answer 8

There is no debate that the earth has warmed from the last extensive glaciation, and more recently out of a "little ice age".

The role that CO2 and mankind's contribution to CO2 plays in all of this, is not known at this time.

No one has shown why warm weather is worse than cold weather. Asking people to lower their standard of living in order to pay more to stay warm in winter ... is a non-starter.

Al Gore said in 1997 the USA would not enter into climate restrictions if China, India, and everyone in the developing world were left out of the solution. There is a video of Al Gore saying this available on the internet.

This is the same position Bush recently said at G-8. In case you thought Bush was being original on this issue, he is not.

Answer 9

I don't know that you can accept it or not, but you know people are selfish. Somebody feel hot in summer, so they turn on the air-conditioner. Everyone think that they just turn on the air-conditioner just one day. But if you think carefully, if there are 1000 people who turn on the air-conditioner in three hours. And suppose in one hour the air-conditioner will charge electric energy 10 votes. If you think, 1000 multiply by 10 equal 10000 vote. This result causes global warming either.
(I am not sure about how much vote that the air-conditioner charge electric energy in one hour.)

Answer 10

Because people can see the "smoothing" of the curves to show warming...statistical manipulation. Careful selection of time spans to make things look bad. Sudden pushes to force people into a certain lifestyle others want them to have, often hypocritically. They want others to do what they themselves do not. It is apparent at times the desire to manipulate others, to force them, not lead by example.

People can see the single-mindedness of the proponents of a massive effort to force THEIR doctrines on everybody, without careful validation that these will in fact achieve the desired goals...unless those goals are to restrict freedom and make money for their own pet industries.

People see that the proponents gloss over things like the MWP and the LIA, and refuse to show how they are different from now, since most I have seen just say they happened, and many refuse to acknowledge that they did even; distorting history!!. I saw one tho that blamed the LIA on the Black Death, so maybe the solution is to bring the Black Death back...and cool the earth that way?

And I have not seen yet why it is bad to have warmth, shallow seas to expand fisheries, kelp farming in them for more good vitamin rich food, a lot more surface area to live in, mountain majesties coming to light we have never seen before, more overall land space for the masses, lots more potential freedom to move around, grow, create...the opportunity to make new cities in the newly-cleared areas and build them right...with open space and lots of public transportation. New industries, new potentials.

Why do these people want us to be bound to the limited present surface area, when we could enjoy the benefits of a warmed earth and more room? More cropland to feed the hungry..is that bad?

I've not seen ANY maps out that compare the earth's surface area and shorelines now with the hypothetical after...and also the land open for human use before and after. Have you? I hear of sea rise, but not of the exposure of new land, fertile, untouched by pesticides, herbicides, and pollutions of many kinds...a chance to start over and do it right.

Also, with shallow seas, it would seem that some people might want to live in submerged housing, and farm the ocean.

I submit we would have more area to be free in, to grow crops that would stabilize CO2 or even the pull it down, and be able to build on our new knowledge better cities, better homes...and I could raise Oranges in Montana...yummy!