Why are people afraid to admit there are human caused environmental problems, especially global warming?

Question

I agree that global warming is something that we all have to grieve and that denial is one of the steps of grieving. And I hope that we can get past the denial to come up with our own creative and egalitarian local, regional, national, and international solutions. When you look at the positive energy that could accompany such a challenge, instead of feeling powerless, it could be a positive thing in our lives.

I think the causes are wide.
The causes are related to ways of thinking, human social systems, beliefs, ideologies, economic systems, etc. etc. And we know a great deal about how some systems are better for sustainable livelihood than others.

It's not so much about 'buying' the right stuff, but about rethinking our communities.

It's not just Al Gore. Scientists have known about the climate changed caused by humans since the 1800s and the industrial revolution. European countries were already 'on' it some years ago asking at conferences how long it was going to take for Americans to admit what was going on. Several European communities and countries are already taking steps to become more self empowered and sustainably self sufficient.

Peer-reviewed scientists primarily agree that climate change is occurring quickly, and that humans are a central or at least contributing part of that change.

Have the nay sayers been to Alaska and seen a glacier melt more in one summer than in a combined melt of 50 years? I have. I've also talked with native Alaskans who know their environments well and can attest to changes that they've never seen before.

If you look at Al Gore's work, he and the scientists that inform him are looking at changes over thousands of years. Archaeologists and geologists also have looked and information about changes over thousands of years. Gore is smarter than you give him credit for.

We don't have to blame anyone for global warming, but we have to admit it's happening and that we've contributed to it. It's not so much a negative guilt trip as a means of rethinking the way we do things.

Goodness! I don't think I ever said 'end of the world' in anything I wrote here.

But making a better world and averting more incidents like Darfur, a war in which the root cause is climate change, would be a positive goal. European countries have been working for several years to help African communities prepare for and deal with increasing drought - which by the way - is exacerbated by the way colonialists treated people and land in Africa. If we don't take climate change seriously as it affects people in other parts of the world, they will react negatively out of desperation, and we will be targets as much as anyone else. When people are hungry, their bodies influence their minds and their actions.

Answer 1

In all honesty, there isn't alot that can be done by the average person. With the exception of recycling, everything costs money to convert to an environmentally friendly method. Not many people want to pay that kind of money to replace things that they already have and that work for them. I'd be willing to bet that if hybrids were the same price or cheaper, a ton more people would have them. If solar panels were cheaper to buy and install, almost everyone would have some. At this time, becoming entirely environmentally conscious is not cost effective for most people.

Answer 2

I am very skeptical about man-made global warming. But most of the skeptics are concerned with our impact on the environment, I have found the "problem" is with environmentalist. They don't seem to grasp the entire issue. Take sustained farming, I've had environmentalist tell me with a straight face that there should only be organic farming, no gmo's etc, after all it the best for the environment. Never mind that if every farm did that you would need to kill off over half the people in the world. So on one hand we need to keep care of the environment, and we need to feed everyone, so we have to be careful because if we don't keep care of the environment the crops will fail and there will be world war. EDIT The case you’re thinking about was a farmer who claimed it was from cross-pollination, the court found he knew what he was doing, that is using Monsanto’s GMO to improve his crop and not pay for the work, yes I followed the case very closely. What you haven’t heard was the cases where Monsanto was sued for contaminating a non-GMO crop they’ve won some and lost some of those cases. As far as safety, GMO have gone through more testing then any non-GMO crop, but really there are no crops in mass production that haven’t been modified, wheat, corn, potatoes, etc all have been heavily modified, the only difference is that they haven’t been tested. There are cases where using just cross-pollination, where the resulting plant could kill you, and in once case it went into production only to find out it poisoning people. On your second thought, if we went with only organic farming and no GMO's half the people in the would would die. So next time you’re at a family reunion or with a group of friends, count off everyone, 1, 2, 1, 2 etc then pick a number say 2, everyone who’s a two is now dead. Also starving people do stupid things like start wars, maybe drop a nuke or two. All it takes for a government with a nuke to say "Give us food or we'll use a nuke against your country. Right now there is plenty of food to go around, despite what the press is telling you. The problem in those countries is the government, and we've been luck that they don't have nukes otherwise who know what would happen.

Answer 3

Probally because what scientist know about the environment could be written inside a matchbook with a crayon.

We cannot predict the weather next week with any accuracy, so why should we believe they can predict the weather 50 years from now.

From 1945 to 1978 the world wide average temperature dropped 1/2 degree, at the same time, that manmade greenhouse gas's increased dramatically.

The scientific community has no explanation of why that occurred.

It goes against everthing global warming supporters are saying now.

Around 600 AD, the temperature started increasing worldwide, this increase lasted until the 1300's.

Scientist have no idea what triggered this global increase in temperature.

Starting in the 1300's, global temperatures started rapidly decreasing, this was known as the" little ice age"

The little ice age lasted untill the late 1800's, when global temperature started increasing again.

Again, scientist have no explanation why the little ice age started,

or why it ended.

So in the last 1400 years, we have seem the worldwide temperature increase, decrease, increase, decrease and start increasing again.

All without any scientific explanation.

But we are supposed to believe, that they cannot tell us why the temperature has changed so dramaticlly over the last 1400 years.

But they know what is going to happen in the next 50 years.

Scientist who disagree with the causes of the current warming trend, are being blackballed and fired from thier positions.

They have actually been compared to holocaust deniers.

Whenever scientific and academic freedom is challanged and denyed.

We have a right to worry and demand just why they are crushing any desent, instead of answering the valid questions those scientist are asking.

Al Gore would be much more believeable, if he hadn't started a company that deals with carbon credits.

A company that is positioned to make hundreds of millions of dollars from any governmental regulations dealing with global warming.

Then there is the fact, that the lagest manmade contributor of greenhouse gas's, are fossil fuel power plants.

The only viable alternative to fossil fuel power plants, are nuclear power plants.

But the most vocal global warming supporters, are also the most vocal critics of nuclear power.

Things just don't add up.

Maybe man is contributing to the natural increase in the temperature.

But to what extent, has yet to be proven.

From most sources I have read, the largest precentage of manmade greenhouse gas's in the atmosphere is stated to be around 6%, and that figure is in dispute.

All global warming initiative combined together, would only decrease that 6% by 0.5%.

Yet, we are told, that that 0.5% will make a difference.

Then there is the fact that:

CO2 emissions growth in the US was far ahead of that of the EU-15 from 1990-2000, but from 2000-2004, America's rate of growth in CO2 emissions was eight percentage points lower than from 1995-2000, while the EU-15 saw an increase of 2.3 points.

From 2000-2004, the United States' CO2 emissions growth rate was 2.1%, compared to the EU-15's 4.5%. That happened while the US economy was expanding 38% faster than the economies of the EU-15 while experiencing population growth at twice the rate of the EU-15.

This naturally has led to questions and debate about the merits of a mandatory emissions cap approach (as currently adopted under Kyoto) versus a voluntary approach to emissions reduction (as adopted by the United States.

Answer 4

To start, the majority of people like to do things that help the environment,

However the question of Global Warming has now become the issue of "Climate Change" because some area's of our globe are getting cooler while others are getting warmer.

People do want to take care of the environment, however the environmentalists charge so much for their products the average American does not have the extra cash to pay for the things that would help.

Answer 5

How is it that the last mini ice age in the late 1400's early 1500's receded 400 years before the industrial age? I will admit that mankind is contributing to some environmental changes, but mankind is not the sole source. Anyone with a 7th grade education can tell you that if you spin a global object tilted on its axis and rotate it around a heat source in an elliptical orbit for millions of years that inevitably there will be periods in time that are warmer than others, additionally; there will be periods that are colder than others. Al Gore and his cronies are only looking at the past 100 years. Any reputable scientist will tell you that you have to look at thousands of years to come to any solid conclusion, and even then, it is only theory. Yes, we can change. We can make industry and vehicles better and more friendly for the environment. But to look at this like it is our fault only is wrong. It's more than wrong, it's asinine

Answer 6

Dear, they have to prove it and stop treating it like something we should "believe" before we can even consider such things!

Scientists don't fight over these things. Politicians and the public do. Scientists are NOT in agreement over global warming.

In addition, all the politicians presently who yelled, "Global warming" are seeing the evidence that it isn't what they thought and are retreating to the cry of "Global climate change!"

This, compared to a few decades ago, you may not remember, when they cried, "Global cooling!"

That doesn't mean it's nonsense, or shouldn't be investigated, but you and the people yelling back at you are letting yourselves be used as political footballs, as ideological fodder in the search for power.

Leave it be. Let the scientists do their job. Wait until they have a group agreement before we start pushing it as a "faith" (MY scientist says it's true, so YOUR scientist must be lying!)

The scientists would be laughing if they weren't crying so hard.

Ask questions, but expecting people to believe without sufficient proof (no, you do not get to decide what sufficient proof is, nor do I) is unjust.

It also doesn't help that we are at the end of an ice age and have been warming for the last several thousand years.

Answer 7

Gore is a brilliant manipulator. The shot of polar bears on the ice flow was ridiculous. A polar bear can swim 50 miles if need be. That polar bear was not trapped on that ice floe and it was not starving. That is one of many lies in his movie.
Regardless of what you say you have seen and the "facts" that you failed to support your position with, there is no concesus reached among the scientific community that global warming is more than a theory. Yes, it is getting warmer and yes man has caused SOME of the climate change. However, at the rate the change is occuring it will be centuries before it spells "the end of the world" as you would have us beleive.

Answer 8

Scientists only have theory's. Yes, the world is changing. However, it has never stayed the same throughout its history. The fact is, the world gets warmer and colder throughout time. I believe that pollution is harmful to the environment, but to say that the world is "warming" due to pollution is just a theory. I believe that changes need to be made, no matter how little. I do not believe that the world is coming to an end. Nor will it any time soon.

Answer 9

the goverment fears that everyone will begin acting crazy, panic, chaos all those things and then companies that have alot of plastic involved with their products will go down
everybody wants to keep peace in their country or else theres no tommorrow.......
im pretty concerned about the subject too but alot of peope dont give a dam

but still many people are changing all of this

Answer 10

Yes it could, but you have wide opinions about the causes. Problem is if we try and do something about it, we could end up making it worst. We have to study all the data, not just what the political left is feeding us.