How can people still think that Global Warming isn't real?

Question

The entire scientific community has been warning us for decades, yet many people still chose to believe the words of a couple of so-called "experts" hired by oil companies and the Bush administration (oil-family). The cigarette companies also had "experts" claiming that cigarettes weren't addictive and didn't cause cancer. What's your explanation?

Answer 1

1. The entire scientific community has not been warning us for decades, though I would agree a large number have been.

2. There are many scientists not hired by Bush, oil companies, or others that are convinced that the earth is warming but that it is not caused by humans. It is not just "so called" experts. Be fair and honest if you expect others to do the same.

3. Al Gore is automatically dismissed by many for some of his rather outlandish statements in the past (I invented the internet, for example) and the fact that he stands to make money from global warming.

4. Any time an issue is championed by extremists on one side or the other (as global warming was championed by extremists on the left for many years) you will always have a group that does not agree, regardless of any information. It becomes an idealogical battle, opinions instead of facts.

There are many other reasons, but there are a few.

For the record, I do believe in global warming, but I am not convinced humans are responsible for all of it. We clearly are involved in it, but the earth has had warming and cooling cycles for millions of years that we know and understand very little of.

Answer 2

You seem to be suffering the same confusion on this issue that many who haven't looked at the scientific arguments are. No one is disputing that the Earth has warmed by an average of one degree C over the past 150 years. That has been well established.
Many, including Al Gore, then make the leap to "humans have caused this and we must fix it". That leap is what is not supported by the majority of scientists.
Many people have been confusing these two points for as long as the debate has been going on.
Scientists generally do not state broad sweeping conclusions. They make more limited and demonstrable claims.
The CO2 studies that Gore is so fond of citing have major flaws and are no longer generally accepted as accurate.
Other factors than GHG emissions by humans have strong evidence to support them
These include, but are certainly not limited to, deforestation, non-human sources for GHG's, Solar flare activity, the Earths natural, cyclic temperature changes.
Other than a UN appointed panel, that like much at the UN is more about politics than science, you don't see general statements about causality coming from scientists.
Especially not from those doing climate research.
Look at the actual research, because some activist restates a claim that, for example, states "CO2 probably has some effect on global warming" to read "scientists prove CO2 causes global warming" doesn't mean that's what the research found.
Most of the global warming projections have been based on computer models that were developed without the participation of mathematic specialists, in this case statisticians. Those models have been shown to use inaccurate algoriths. Yet even after their results have been discounted by the scientists, they are still used by global warming activists to support their claims.
Global warming is real, no one disputes that.
What is disputed are the claims that disaster will sone be upon us if we don't take drastic action.
Until studies have been done that show human causation of the warming, something that has not happened yet, claims that all the proof is in and we can stop discussing it are premature.
Even less justified is the launching massive government programs that may do nothing to affect the warming trend.

Answer 3

it's not the global warming i deny. i deny to listen to your so called "experts" like Al Gore to take this and run it to re-jump his political career.

30 years ago scientists were saying that we were going through a global cooling. Fact of the matter is that:

In the 1970s, there was increasing awareness that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945. The general public had little awareness of carbon dioxide's effects on climate, although Paul R. Ehrlich mentions climate change from the greenhouse gases in 1968.

Scientists express varied opinions concerning the cause of global warming. Some say that it has not yet been ascertained whether humans are the primary cause of global warming (Balling, Lindzen, and Spencer). Others attribute global warming to natural variation (Soon, Baliunas, and Carter), ocean currents (Gray), solar activity (Shaviv and Veizer), cosmic rays (Svensmark), or unknown natural causes (Leroux).

Here's what i say. It may be human related. It may not be.

I dont want to spend my tax dollars for global warming just so they can inturn support campaigns such as Gore's. Joining the Kyoto Protocol costs the U.S. approximately $400 Billion every year. why put that much money into something that is a gamble whether it will work or not?

Let the scientists hash this out... Not let a rich Harvard Grad with a degree in government, nothing about science or the enviroment, set the tone for our worlds future.

On top of that why dont we focus on nations that are not only ignoring the fight against global warming but hindering the progress of stopping it. China is producing 1 new coal mine every 3 weeks on average. That sure isnt helping now is it.

Answer 4

The earth has been around for billions of years. Man has been around for a thousands of years. Modern man has been around for 100-150 depedning on how you look at modern. The fact that some people think we can destroy something that has been around for billions of years is a joke in its self.

The truth is no one knows what the earth was like a thousand years ago. They did not know how to take the temp back then and no one knew how big the ice caps were. Mainly because at that time people thought the world was flat.

Maybe the earth goes thru this cycle every 50,000 years. Truth is we simply do not know. There will always be experts who say man is the cause and there will always be experts who say man is not the cause.

Answer 5

Lets say it is real.

We clean up our environment

Lets say it isn't real

We still clean up our environment

It ends up being a win win situation.

However, the emperical evidence is very strong that it does exist so in this case, to err on caution is best. Because if we don't and all the naysayers are wrong, then we've really screwed ourselves.

Peace

Answer 6

The only people that think that are driving around in gas guzzling SUV's, flying around in private jets, own stock in oil companies, hire illegal immigrants and basically live in the state of Texas.

Answer 7

Deep down they know it is, but it doesn't suit their politics. If a Conservative had produced An Inconvenient Truth, the neo-cons would be jumping on the band wagon, but then again they support big business, so maybe not.

Answer 8

Nations are busy creating more jobs and they are ignoring the fact that one day there will be no people to create jobs for its sad but true.

Answer 9

I would have to say they have blinders on. Some are individuals who are near the end of their life and say "it doesn't matter to me, I won't be around". And, then there are others who have a lot to lose if they confirm the fact, oil tycoons, power companies, etc. We need to wake up and smell the roses. Our world is being destroyed faster than we know.

Answer 10

I think if everyone does the indian
ice dance we can reverse it,,,BUT
IT DOESNT EXIST :(