Why do global warming skeptics all sound alike?

Question

I have no problem with people having opinions contrary to the majority. And the science of global warming is complex enough for there still to be plenty to argue about. But what puzzles me is how much alike the skeptics all sound. They all insult the gullible people who believe the scientists. They suggest the scientists are part of some kind of plot. They blame the liberal media. They especially blame Al Gore. They seem to believe that soembody is getting rich from selling the idea of global warming. They're convinced that it's all due to earth's natural cycles. And they absolutely reject any evidence to the contrary. And their voices are so full of scorn for anyone who thinks differently.

I can't help but wonder why they all sound so much alike. Are they all quoting some conservative commentator? The similarities are much too striking for these to all be just individual opinions. Does anyone know where this is coming from?

Answer 1

After reading the answers so far, I am impressed with the logic and reasoning presented by most of them. And yet, I have noticed the insults and impatience you mention as well. Perhaps it is just an artifact of the format. I have seen the same silly question posed over and over in other areas of Yahoo, and where I might have given a thoughtful response the first couple of times, I tend to do the subject less justice after numerous responses.

When I was first teaching, my mentor told me something that really stayed with me. "You will hear the same silly questions and comments over and over, and it will be hard to be patient. But remember that the hundredth student who asks the question deserves the same respect as the first."

Perhaps we can adopt the same philosophy here.

Answer 2

I guess there's just not enough "Diversity" among us block-head lock-step conservatives. I know how that irritates liberals. The Church of Man Made Global Warming, on the other hand, has a never-ending and ever-changing set of gimmicks to browbeat and shame people into foregoing rational thought in favor of faith. Last week the ice core data was the main and definitive proof that CO2 causes warming. Now that someone pointed out that the ice cores show global CO2 levels went up AFTER global temperatures, the ice cores are irrelevant. Why? Because the evidence disproves the conclusion these "scientists" have already settled on. When a conclusion is drawn before the hypothesis and proper experimentation and research, that is what is called junk science.

As far as plotting: It's the big liberal collectivist cabal that has been searching for a way to gain more control over individual behaviour. The global warming theory is just the perfect excuse for liberals to ram their pre-existing vision down our throats. More taxes, less freedom, bigger government and more people who get paid ridiculous sums to produce nothing but red tape. Have you ever eaten red tape?

We trash Al Gore because he is the most high-profile priest of the religion, and is also a giant boob. First, his movie is put forth as the thing that will put all the arguments to rest. Then when someone shoots the thing full of holes, Al Gore is irrelevant and just a bit player and the movie isn't that significant. It's the ice cores. The ice cores are the...... oh, no no, wait, those are irrelevant already too. Liberals have decided that GW is THE way they will finally gain control of the smallest details of all our lives. It's a mad rush to put up phony evidence faster than they can be shot down for the crap they are.

Nobody's getting rich??? What about the carbon credit scam?? It's like "Dot-Com 2.0" Seems to me there's ALREADY been a few instances where the things have been pumped up and sold at extreme overinflated prices to unsuspecting dupes who had to sell them for pennies on the dollar.

So why is consistency a problem? Is it somehow a virtue that The Church of Man Made Global Warming changes its' tenets and precepts more often than Hillary changes her position on Iraq? Is that supposed to be the cornerstone of credibility? We're smart because we always say something different? Ask a hundred green wackos about GW and you'll get a hundred different answers. Therefore we must be right? We have no coherance or unity, so you should flail around with us and change your entire lives? NO thanx!!

We all sound alike because the platform is simple and doesn't change...... 1. The evidence is shaky. 2. It's NOT settled science. 3. We're NOT going to believe it and change our entire existence just because Liberal boobs and pot-smoking hippie chicks with hairy armpits say so.

Answer 3

It doesn't take a conservative commentator to oppose the global warming scare. Thinking people can do it all by ourselves. If we all sound the same maybe it's because we have our facts straight. The proponents of global warming keep saying that there is a scientific consensus on this issue, when in fact, there is none. Of course, we're talking man-made global warming here and being able to reverse that - not normal cyclic global warming. Any so called evidence is by and large rejected because most of it is not really evidence at all. When you talk about scorn you have to talk about it on both sides of the issue. The opponents aren't any worse than the rest of you.

Answer 4

I don't know any commentators but I am skeptical. I did some of my own research on the subject and found out that the 16th century was much warmer than the present. Also the temp has not has not risen since 1999. Through the history of the world the temperature fluctuates up and down. It goes in cycles. Also in the 15th century the majority of scientists at the time believed the earth was flat.

Answer 5

They may sound alike to you as much as you sound alike to them. Quite frankly I'm tired on buying told that I am somehow less intelligent or uninformed because i chose to believe in the 50% and rising side of the scientific community that disproves the hole theory. If you need to see what I am talking about, look up global warming in the Journal of Science. Not all of the scientists are in support of Al Gore.

I am all fore doing my part to conserve resources and make the planet a better place to live. I just don't think that sabotaging the economy of every industry is in our best interest.

If you would like to really do your part to cut down on CO2 emissions, quite breathing.

Answer 6

Well for one I'm not really gullible .I really don't believe everything everyone tells me .But i do believe in global warming and not at all sure of what the cause is . I have 2 guys so far jump down my throat for answering a question on global warming calling me a drug addict an alcoholic and a few other choice names . I do not do drugs and i hate alcohol it makes me sick . I'm 51 years old and all i was doing was talking about the good old days the way it was 40, 45 years ago and the next thing i know I'm accused of being a drunk and a druggie ." 3DM " and " usa " you guys know who I'm talking about . These guys cant have an answer without bashing another persons thoughts and always have the same answers like there hypnotized or maybe there getting paid for it who knows . Oh i did mention the rich oil company's maybe that's the connection your looking for . All in all I'm just a roofing contractor for crying out loud but i do know i did touch a nerve with them." 3DM "and " usa "you guys really need a life your taking this all way to personal .

Answer 7

I will try!

First off, there should be no problems with having difference of opinion, aside from what those in the minority get called. It has been presumed with me that I am rich, drive SUVs, litter the countryside, and do not recycle. By the Global Warming proponents.

I do not enjoy poeple who do not know me presuming my personal life based on my not agreeing with them. But I try not to react, too much.

I have read some of the diatribes though of the scientists who get their papers published for being on the popular side, against those who do not agree with them. Especially those who have evidence to back the disagreement. It is especially interesting how those scientists who have evidence are so widely and viciously smeared, by alleging associations with evil.

And over here, Al Gore is the one who is constantly in the news for speaking for the imminent destruction of the world unless we ALL follow him and do what the Consensus demands.

And you know, we cannot mention even that there is a thing called religion in our public schools because of controversy, but we CAN and do take the Global Warming film of Mr. Gore's into even small children's classrooms to supposedly tell them the only truth there is to this issue. They never see another side. And they never know there is a controversy.

And you know, all the pro-GW sound like. This is a catastrophe, you have to all do thus and so immediately no matter what the cost, this is proven 100% beyond any doubt that this will happen exactly as we predict, and anybody who differs is paid off by evil companies. Mmm...

Wow Would I -- I liked your answer. MySpace is Super...about publishing.

I know for an abolute fact that a prestigeous scientific journal, back in the 60's, changed its policy on printing papers to include a check on the religion of the author, and those of certain religions were not permitted to publish, "to avoid prejudice", no matter the content of the paper.

I have heard that this is getting more and more widespread, so those who do publish have to find obscure journals that do not have filters set up to only allow certain ideas to be expressed, and ban thosw whose ideas might not fit the notion of what a scientists may and may not believe.

No, it is currently very hard to get research that does not fit the Consensus printed, from the reports, regardless of whether it is good science. It is not "Politically Correct", and you surely know the problems of anything currently not Politically Correct. Makes sure anything that is published agrees with everything else. Check into this; the evidence seems to be if you do not agree with the current fads particularly over here, you cannot publish And are ridiculed, as I saw recently.in a journal I looked into.

As to riches, it does look like some big multinational companies are getting cart blanc to strip away and kill the Earth's jungles and plant oil palms, and are getting paid enormous amounts for planting trees where trees used to grow before. All I can say for sure is, I am not getting rich. I've planted many trees, but always had to pay for them myself!

As to evidence, I still want to know why all global warmers effectively reject the existence of history before about 1900 or so? Known historical climate changes are just a chilly vaguely-wavy line. I read that this was needed to make the man-made global warming come out of the computers to the high numbers needed to get action, in a defense in one of the many articles I read.

One other thing and I will pipe down and go to bed. I have been among other things in my life, an Amateur Radio operator; even built much of my own equipment. Worked the low VHF bands. When the sunspot cycle is high, the particles from the sun hit the Earth often and cause intense ionization in the atmosphere.

I used to work E-skip off the ionization down fairly low to the Earth. It was enough to bend the electromagnetic waves I transmitted right back down to the Earth. That ionization fades but the energy has to go somewhere...and it seems there is no good way for it to get out of the atmosphere as I read the charts. Yet I do not see ANY mention of the effects of the sun's particle radiation on the earth as far as an input that could affect the temperature. Why not?

Back to you folks for the analysis.

Answer 8

You are blinded by tour own idealogy. Why do you single out conservatives when it's the liberals who keep telling us that the "sky is falling and it's all our fault"? You obviously haven't done your homework because anywhere from 65-70% of climatologists and meteorologists (weathermen, for your sake) don't swallow the pablum rolling from the all-knowing Lord Albert. They believe very strongly that global warming is a cyclical phenomenon and back their findings up with research. Did you ever think that Gore, Kennedy, Hilary-The Ice Princess and the rest might be using this as a political platform? GUESS WHAT...they are! Mainly because they have no other worthwhile issues to stand on.

Answer 9

I think the big problem is that global warming is a very misleading name, ice age is a very misleading name.
I think that we are having "global warming" cause the next "ice age"
people on both sides notice something wrong with there views, not many people see what is happening, so there is lots of confusion.

Answer 10

why do we sound the same? I say all believes sound the same. They cant answer questions because to be a believer u have to be uneducated in physics and meteorology.
There are over a millions factors that effect the worlds climate. and to think it is co2, not even the main greenhouse gas (which water vapor) is mad. seriously think about it. Take it from a physics graduate... we dont know enough to blame it on co2.