i'm just wondering if you have the same opinion...about global warming.....?

Question

Do you get irritated when people say global warming is a so called 'myth' or 'hoax'??? becuase some people on Yahoo! answers are sooooooooo arrggg!!! ><

Answer 1

It depends why they're saying that. A few years ago there was a deliberate campaign by some of the oil companies and even certain governments to discredit the science of global warming. To this end there is a lot of misinformation circulating on the internet and in the media. If people are exposed to this material they may understandably be misinformed.

There are some people that are very closed minded and simply refuse to accept the evidence of global warming even when it's staring them in the face.

I wouldn't worry too much about it. Three years ago 26% of the population didn't view global warming as a serious threat, today that figure is down to just 8% and is continually falling.

What I find most annoying is the 'evidence' that some skeptics use to validate their arguments, you've probably seen some of it yourself. Ordinarily it would be very funny but some people do genuinely beleive this stuff.

Answer 2

There are zealots on both sides of the debate.

There are those who say that it’s a “myth” or a “hoax” and I’d say they’re wrong. There’s obviously no smoke without fire, so some of the climate science is bound to be fair and accurate.

However, there are also people on here who make wild and ridiculous claims around global warming. I saw an answer on here the other day that claimed we would experience “at least 152m” of sea level rise! Er, I think not.

I’m nearly 40 years old, and I think I have a pretty sound and intelligent head on my shoulders. Over the years I’ve learned to look at things objectively for a while before I come to a decision.

With regards to global warming, I was initially a believer. What converted me was the revelation that the Mann et al “Hockey-stick” graph was a fraud. That Mann et al had made grave mistakes in creating the graph was not the problem; we all make mistakes, after all, and I could have forgiven that. No, the problem was, that when Mann heard that people were questioning the validity of his graph, he had it “peer reviewed”. This is the process where other, supposedly independent, scientists in the same field look at the work and decide if they believe it is valid. The result of this “peer review” was unanimous support for the graph. But they were utterly wrong! The peer review process completely failed to find the mistakes in the graph.

Now, the Global Warming Alarmists dismiss this as irrelevant, but it’s not; it’s incredibly important. It demonstrates that the whole peer review process is flawed. Perhaps even corrupt – a review of those scientists carrying out the peer review showed that many of them had worked with Mann before, so were not independent. Therefore, it could be argued, the whole “hockey-stick” graph fiasco was a scam to try and con people into believing the global warming deception.

This lead me to look into the issue a little more thoroughly and I discovered more dodgy things like this, the latest of which is the Christopher Landsea shocker. He’s an expert on cyclonic storms who worked on both the IPCC’s 2nd and 3rd reports. In 2004 he was invited to do research on Atlantic hurricanes (his speciality) for the 4th report (which was released this year) . A few days later, however, the IPCC held a press conference titled “Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity.” But he hadn’t done any work that substantiated this claim. Nobody had. He realised that the IPCC was corrupting science, and resigned. (You can read about it here… http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=ae9b984d-4a1c-45c0-af24-031a1380121a&k=0 )

All this has left me feeling very suspicious of the global warming science, especially as presented by the IPCC. Remember, there’s one, universal equation that applies to publicly funded science: no problem = no funding. While the Global Warming Alarmists constantly claim that the only people who say that global warming isn’t a huge problem, are funded by the oil companies, it could be that the truth is the reverse: that the only people saying it is a huge problem are those who are trying to secure their future funding.

It is for this reason that I have a lot of respect for the views of people such as Michael Crichton (http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html ) and Christopher Monckton (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nwarm05.xml ) neither of whom earn a penny from the oil companies, but both of whom have looked at the debate and doubt it is a problem we have to deal with at present.

Crichton finishes on the following point: “We live in a country where 40% of high school graduates are functionally illiterate. Where schoolchildren pass through metal detectors on the way to class. Where one child in four says they have seen a murdered person. Where millions of our fellow citizens have no health care, no decent education, no prospects for the future. If we really have trillions of dollars to spend, let us spend it on our fellow human beings. And let us spend it now. And not on our impossible fantasies of what may happen one hundred years from now.”

I couldn’t agree more.

Answer 3

I believe it is completely true. But let's say global warming is a hoax or myth, isn't it still our duty as humans to take care of the earth God has given us? Whether global warming is true or false, there is no excuse whatsoever to abuse and misuse our environment.

Answer 4

Of course. But, getting aggravated doesn't help anything. You need to keep your cool and make the effort to provide solid information.

Some people will ignore it and continue to say uninformed things, because no facts will change their mind or alter their preconceived notions. But talking to them is pointless, so don't worry about it. You're speaking to the people here who are thoughtful and interested in learning. Getting aggravated, using insults, etc., just weakens your case.

EDIT For example, someone below recommends the swindle video. This comes up over and over again, in spite of the fact that it's nonsense. I'm aggravated and my answer is:

It is simply a political statement which distorts science.

"The science might be bunkum, the research discredited. But all that counts for Channel 4 is generating controversy."

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032572,00.html

Gore's movie may be a little over dramatic, but it has the basic science right. This movie does not.

Channel 4 itself undercuts the movie in a funny way. If you go to their website on the movie you find links to real global warming information. They also say "Confused now? Ask the Expert." The link for questions goes to a respected mainstream scientist who supports (mostly) human responsibility for global warming.

Answer 5

Yes it drives me crazy. People like that are ignorant and obviously don't care about anyone else in the future or anything else in the future. Politicians often say global warming isnt real as an excuse for not properly funding environmental organizations. People need to STOP makeing excuses. Thankfully most people arnt as, un-informed!

Answer 6

I'm a conservationist, a non-conventional environmentalist, a person who abhors hydrocarbon dependence for energy, and a person who's taken the trouble to educate himself on these subjects for half a century.

I'm not convinced the global warming phenomenon is grounds for legitimate concern. I'd go further and say, I think there's been too much politicalization of the issue.

We have a limited amount of fiscal, emotional, and educational ammunition to be fired in hopes of hitting legitimate issues. I hate to see piles of spent shell casings lying around without being fired at a tried and true threat.

Such as our additions to hydrocarbons for energy production, constriction of predatory wildlife habitat, strip-mining of our deserts for coal, strip mining for copper, degradation and depletion of surface and groundwater resources, erosion of public lands from over-grazing, loss of topsoil in the Middle West from deep plowing, and a lot more.

Let's not assume everyone who waves the bloody flag demanding a greater consensus of scientists and better, more thorough study, is anti-environmentalist.

I believe there's one sitting here answering your question who knows as much about the issues as you do.

Answer 7

It is a hoax. Please read this before you discredit and bash my argument:

The science behind global warming is faulty. I used to believe it, but after watching this British documentary, I'm definitely convinced otherwise (and I am quite liberal when it comes to the sciences!)

Search google videos for "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Now THAT is real science.

Answer 8

Global warming is an issue. Here's a clip that you'll find interesting on global warming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

Answer 9

Jack P said, "I believe there's one sitting here answering your question who knows as much about the issues as you do."

I think you're too modest. It looks as though you have not only a good handle on the issues, but also logical reasoning to boot.

I don't know if I would agree on every issue or even most. Who would or should? But I admire your practical outlook...a tempered idealism.

Answer 10

yeah it really ticks me off, in fact I think everyone on here should move to grass huts with no electricity and sign your houses over to me so I can sell them and buy carbon offsets for all of us. That'll show em