Why is there so much misinformation about global warming?

Question

And why do people continue to believe things that have been disproven?

I've asked this in the Environment section and haven't gotten a good answer, except that people will believe what they want to believe.

For example, that volcanoes cause global warming when in reality they contribute 1% the greenhouse gases of humans and actually cause global cooling. Or that the sun is responsible for global warming when the only other planets warming are parts of Mars (due to dust storms darkening the surface, and other parts of Mars are cooling!) and Pluto. If it were due to the sun, every planet would be warming inversely proportionate to their distances from the sun! Or any number of myths that people have brought up here, from cow farts to soda pop causing global warming. Or that it's all a hoax perpetrated by scientists who don't even make profits.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ApKvie5J_.B1pnQlT7eTH0fty6IX?qid=20070529143841AAyApmD

What do you think?

The only explanation I can come up with is that people don't want to believe that humans cause global warming, and people find a way to believe what they want to believe. Also that people are too lazy to really research the scientific evidence so instead they listen to what Rush Limbaugh tells them.

Answer 1

The Republican party is composed of 2 groups: 1. a wealthy business class, which profits by activities which cause pollution and 2. a lower middle class who are commonly socially conservative religious fundamentalists who resist any suggestion that they change their lifestyle.

Obviously, it's in the interest of the financial and the religious leaders of these factions to deny global warming. It's easy for them to aim propaganda at the lower middle class "folks" who fear government regulation and who are anti science and anti intellectual to begin with. So in my view, the strong denials are from people who've been bombarded by big money propaganda, who don't understand basic science and who hold religiously inspired view that human activities cannot influence the workings of a world created and governed personally by God.

Answer 2

EXACTLY!!!

That's the biggest problem. Some how humans effect on climate change due to CO2 emmissions in now a political issue. The only ones who think it's a hoax are Cons/Reps. With all the evidence out there they will say things like, "It's hard to believe humans could have an effect on the planet". A lot of things are hard to believe but when all evidence leads to the conclusion that humans are responsible, it's hard to argue. Why fight the idea? Why not err on the side of caution? We can only benefit from reducing the pollution and moving towards alternative energy sources.

It amazes me how brainwashed people can be these days when we have 21st century technology being ignored because people don't "feel like it's happening".

You know people used to believe the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. Even after scientists at the time had determined beyond reasonable doubt that it was not the case.

Is that the Conservative way? Conserve every ancient theory of the world and fight tooth and nail just so you don't have to accept a change, regardless of what science has determined?

Dana, you will never get a clear answer on global warming from a Con/Rep because the country is so split and pride has over taken debate and the ability to reason. I believe, that if this debate was happening 10 years ago you wouldn't see the country split down party lines on issues such as humans effects on the enviroment in regards to climate change. Hell, Los Angeles has had brown hazy sunsets for the past 20 years. Where do think the brown came from? You think pumping that gas into the atmosphere has ZERO effect on the enviroment?

Answer 3

The acepted term now is Climate Change. This Idea is that the climates all over the world will change in some way. It may be rain more in India but less in Africa, Europe will have warmer weather whilr Russia will enter a new iceage.

We live in a society that doesn't value a scientific education as a result the media that is responsible for giving us our information is science poor. While it is true that "most" volcanos only add 1% of all greenhouse gases that is when they are just regular eruptions like Mauna Lea in Hawaii, If you have a large eruption like Mt Pinatubo in the Philipines in 1996 or Krakatoa in Indonesia in the 1870's those were massive eruptions that blow ejecta into the startosphere and effected weather and sunrises and sunset for 1-10 years then we see a great rise in sulphur dioxides and both carbon dioxides and monoxide and the like and they put out in one day what Mauna Kea puts out in two years, It is from these studies the idea of nuclear winter and global warming began. So that is why you see misinformation it's just bad scientific explainations.

The fact is that we can track a raise in tempetures aroung the world that seems to start from the time of the Industrial Revolution and continues to this day. Is the way we live a factor I don't Know but I do know three things;
1. Humans are the only animals on this planet that can effect the whole enviroment . No other animal can. A few trips to a library will show you that. There has never been a sustained change like this tempature rise that hasn't led to climate change
2. The Earth has had period of climate change before see Ice Ages and even B. Franklin' observation of the Mini Ice Age that lasted from 1770-1840. But we have never seen this much change this fast. The fact that in 2006 the Gulf Coast was hit by not one but two major cat 5 hurricanes within weeks of each other is significant.
3. Some thing is happening if it has a natural or and unnatural cause some thing is happening to the enviroment and if we can slow it down by building more hybrid cars and burning less oil then so be it.

You may not agree with what I am saying but that is how I see it, I hope that that answered your question.

Answer 4

I find it ironic that there are answers here about the conservative media and how that is all conservatives listen too. When in reality 75% of popular media is in fact liberal and perpetuates the myths that you speak with most Americans.

There is very little conclusive scientific data that supports global warming and in fact the majority of the scientific community does not support many of the popular theories that the media puts out as gospel. With movies like the "Day after Tomorrow" is it any wonder most people believe we have a real problem when in fact that is still very much open as to how much effect we as humans really have on the environment.

People really need to sit down and examine both sides of the issue. Instead of just watching a movie like "An Inconvienent Truth" and jumping on the the global warming bandwagon read something from the other side like "Satanic Gases by Patrick Michaels".

I for one don't think global warming is as big an issue as the media makes it out to be but I do respect opinions from other side and am not going to sit here and say anyone is crazy for believing what they believe.

Answer 5

Because both sides have people who lie thru their teeth to support their point of view.

And like the saying goes, one bad apple, can tarnish the whole bunch.

It has moved beyond pure science now, now it is a political issue.

You have scientist being fired and black balled, because they don't agree with the prevailing theories.

When dissent is stifled, it calls into question, why ?

And there are very basic questions that have not been answered.

Such as, what caused to cooling period from 1945 to 1978 ?

What effect does the sun play ?

( you mention the other planets, but they don't have atmosphere's )

They aren't talking about the sun being hotter, but how solar radiation reacts to earth's atmosphere.

And then there is the fact the the largest producer of manmade green house gas's, are Fossil fuel power plants.

And the easist way to reduce those green house gas's right now, is to build nuclear power plants.

Which are safely operated all over the world.

But some of the most vocal speakers about global warming, and also the most vocal critics against nuclear power.

Then you have people like Al Gore, who start speaking about Global Warming, right after he starts a company to buy, sell and trade carbon credits.

A company positioned to make hundreds of millions of dollars, do to any global warming legislation.

But basicly, it just like anything else people are divided on, they tell out right lies about the otherside to further thier position.

Answer 6

Or....it is part of a natural cycle that has caused Ice ages and warming trends time and again throughout the history of the planet. See the glaciers, see the glaciers melt, see the glaciers again, see the glaciers melt again....etc. When the Vikings were farming in Greenland around 800 AD it was much warmer then, they eventually left Greenland because as it got colder and colder, the ice hampered their navigation and the land froze. They left because of a large cooling trend. There was yet again a mini Ice age in Europe in the 1600's. Although there is no doubt the CO2 we are emitting is having some effect on the climate, the amount of the effect is highly disputable. The CO2 levels have remained virtually the same since the 1860's, so , why now are the alarmists screaming the end is near if nothing is done in 10 years?

Answer 7

The term Global Warming indicates that it is a trend set in stone. Climates change and this is not even the warmest that it has been in this interglacial period. People wouldn't get so irritated if it weren't for the fools like Al Gore that make stuff up, like 20 foot sea rise in 100 years, that gets parroted by idiots that don't know their @$$ from a hole in the ground. The amount of warming from CO2 is about 0.5 degrees. It will be less than a degree in 50 years. Carbon gets removed from the air by natural cycles so it isn't a permanent increase. Warmer nights, longer growing seasons and increased efficiency of photosynthesis doesn't necessarily translate into the death of the planet. It isn't a greater threat than nuclear arsenals or terrorism, unless your goal is propaganda, which it is in the case of Al Gore.

Answer 8

If there's any incorrect information it's coming from your side. Is the "debate particularly over", "the technology is settled", "there's consensus" propaganda: In a 2003 ballot performed by way of German environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, 2-thirds of greater than 530 local weather scientists from 27 international locations surveyed didn't suppose that "the present state of medical potential is constructed good sufficient to permit for a fair comparison of the consequences of greenhouse gases." About part of the ones polled acknowledged that the technology of local weather difference used to be now not sufficiently settled to go the trouble over to policymakers in any respect. The twentieth century is the warmest on list. That is established on temperature reconstruction experiences supported by way of few. Soon and Baliunas (2003) studied over one hundred temperature reconstruction experiences from everywhere the arena. What do AGW say approximately Soon and Baliunas? "Soon & Baliunas 2003 pointed out a hundred and forty four experiences, of which handiest 14 had been international, adding Mann. Eleven of the thirteen different international experiences supported Mann's conclusions in complete or in side. Of the 138 non-international experiences pointed out by way of Soon & Baliunas, 112 supported Mann's conclusions in complete or in side. This rarely constitutes a refutation." This is their end and also you inform me why it's not a refutation. "Climate proxy study supplies an mixture, huge viewpoint on questions related to the truth of Little Ice Age, Medieval Warm Period and the 20 th century floor thermometer international warming. The photo emerges from many localities that each the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm epoch are fashionable and close-synchronous phenomena, as conceived by way of Bryson et al. (1963), Lamb (1965) and countless researchers due to the fact. Overall, the 20 th century does now not include the warmest anomaly of the beyond millennium in among the proxy files, that have been sampled international-extensive. Past researchers implied that distinguished twentieth century warming approach a international human have an impact on. However, the proxies exhibit that the 20 th century isn't strangely hot or severe." I can cross on and on. But who's deceptive who?

Answer 9

I'm skeptical about global warming for several reasons:

-All IR energy that can be absorbed by CO2 is already being absorbed-i.e. an increase in CO2 can not increase the warming

-The temperature of some places has warmed, while others have cooled. It is non-sensical to say the Earth is warming across the planet. There are millions of ways to weight and average these point measurements, and you can generate any result you like by doing this.

-Computer models can also generate any result depending on the input. Like trying to predict the economy's performance , it is impossible to account for all of the variables that affect the weather/climate in a computer model

-Deforestation and increases in city size have warmed areas locally, just by greater asphalt area, further complicating the matter

-I find it suspicious tha scientists with legitimate doubts are shouted down by their peers

-I find it very suspicious that large companies that stand to benefit from global warming regulation are pushing the idea (example - oil companies that want to be paid for carbon capture, or GE , which wants government subsidies for solar cells)

- I think people always had a fear we were "doing something to alter the balance of things" . This is why primitive man did rain dances and sacrifices to the gods.

Answer 10

why it is that everyone seems to ignore the fact that we are burning 80 million barrels of oil daily. basic conservation of energy laws says that heat has to go somewhere. It is an accepted fact that the elevated CO2 levels act as an isulator to keep heat in the atmosphere. Not only the sun's energy but also that extra 320 trillion BTU's we add everyday.