How can people not believe in Global Warming?

Question

are they serious? I mean, c'mon how can they not believe in it?

Answer 1

There are a lot of common topics that the skeptics keep recycling. Some of these were put into a television show that first aired in Britain and is now going to be shown in Australia. The "points" that were made in this TV show were contested in this article:
http://www.amos.org.au/BAMOS_GGWS_new.pdf
It pretty much covers the scientific validity of all the major points that people who want to ignore reality try to envoke to fight their case. It is pretty interesting actually because they show the famous "little ice age" temperature recordings... but the one that the skeptics pull out is just one location of many, but when you put all the different locations on the graph you can see that not all areas cooled like the place that was choosen, and that not all became as hot directly before as the one that was choosen. In fact, if you average all of the locations there is a disturbing trend near the end of the graph where all of these locations are up in temperature, therefore, no locations are balancing the temperature out for the average. Here is another version of the temperature graph that shows multiple locations: http://www.lowimpactliving.com/images/departures-in-temperature.gif but the one in the article is better because each temperature location is independently shown where as this one shows the average and standard deviation. Another graph that they pointed out as quite comical was the "solar" graph and how the solar/global temperature seemed to go in concert with each other. If you look a little closer you'll notice that the solar data cuts out at 1975... hmmm, the reason why is becuse the Earth's temperature data has gone up since 1975, where as the solar data would suggest that we should have been cooling since 1975. It is amazing how you can make a case for anything if you are willing to lie. Anyways, once put up to peer review the skeptics cases have no substance every time. Don't get me wrong, it is good to question, that is part of science, but as of yet, all the scenarios that the skeptics have derived evidence from have either been misrepresented (which is unfortunately bad science and wastes time) or else the empirical evidence has proven them incorrect. Enjoy the article!

Answer 2

Real easy:

The issue of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been around for at least 20 years now since collecting samples have been taking place.

It wasn't until someone got a marketing scheme together that it be came the most important event of the decade.

Remember a penny from every American is equal to $3,000,000 and be cause it is an Organization doing the collection it is tax free.

So follow the money and don't worry about the science. If the science is impressive enough then the public will believe.

Answer 3

I think you (and others on here, as usual) are missing the point of what the debate is about. It is not a matter of whether global warming occurs, but what is the cause of global warming. That is what is still up for debate (and yes I am serious).

I must say I am amazed at a couple of the responses you received from this question. For instance:

1) Jezzika states "they are ignorant and have to see something psyichal to acknowledge it exists (i cant spell, dont hate me)" ----- so do you apply the same logic to the debate about God? From what you claim, you must believe in God. No problem here, but many who believe in the man induced global warming issue seem to also shun religion.

2) two_eighty_eight states "99% of the world's leading scientists have conclusive evidence that global warming is caused by humans." ----- this is an ABSOLUTE lie!!!!! When you go to this type of extreme statement, you COMPLETELY discredit yourself and what you are arguing for. These types of claims are just as ignorant as people on the other side of the debate saying NO global warming has occurred.

3) Bob questions people using logic rather than science. Hmmm.....didn't know these two were mutually exclusive.

In a couple of years, this issue will be put to rest thanks to more and more scientists coming out against the extraordinary claims made by Al Gore and friends (don't forget to follow the $$ to find out at least one reason Al is pushing this).

Hopefully you will learn from this issue so you don't hop on the bandwagon when the next apocalyptic event caused by man (of course) comes around.

Answer 4

As you can see, some people still deny it. But note they have no science, only "logic" and politics. For the record:

Long term (short term weather is always variable) temperatures are going up. This graph is not disputed, even by most skeptical scientists.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record_png

The only answer that works (in other words, the only explanation that make the computations come out numerically) is that, starting about 40 years ago, man took over the control of climate from nature.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

The key word in the following quote is "quantitative". No skeptical theory can make the numbers fit the observed data.

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know... Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point. You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."

Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA

Good websites for more info:

http://profend.com/global-warming/
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/
http://www.realclimate.org
"climate science from climate scientists"

Answer 5

You sould just like the religious right asking "how can people not believe in salvation through Jesus."

Not everyone takes things on faith the way you do.

Heather, the MWP and the LIA were global, nobody just puts out temperatures from "one place" - the clear record of what grew when and where, and what travel routes were iced over, is unmistakable.

The question seems to be how can you believe in man-made global warming when the entire case for it, as shown above, is intimidation - say you believe in it or we'll call you ignorant.

Answer 6

i'm nevertheless a sprint sceptical, notwithstanding i for my section care approximately our wild places. I do although think of that we ought to continuously take the possibility heavily. The data proves that organic cycles of climate take place on a grand scale. there have been as quickly as lions, hippos and elephants wandering the united kingdom geographical area, approximately a hundred and twenty,000 years in the past. That became into an interglacial heat spell. the element that may not disputed, is that those issues ensue for sure, in spite of everything the Scottish geographical area is packed with glacial good factors. although, the data ability that our further contribution to worldwide warming is making it ensue at a quicker fee than existence can handle. we are conversing approximately climate exchange occurring in an prolonged time, somewhat than spanning centuries or 1000's of years. plant existence and fauna has coped with climate exchange somewhat properly in the previous. woodlands and grasslands can pass at their snails p.c.., to maintain song of the situations that adventure them. presently there are further matters. we've our plant existence and fauna trapped in wallet that are surrounded with the aid of farmland. The organic "corridors" are long gone. plant existence and fauna charities are doing their ultimate to make our wild places extra joined up. If climate exchange maintains because it is and there is not any area for issues to bypass, then we are able to lose lots. besides, i think of my important difficulty is that i do no longer want it to be genuine.

Answer 7

Because people are stubborn. The second guy proved it.

"No matter how much is fed down your throat, there is no conclusive evidence for global warming, and an even further un-backed leap that it's due to human intervention."

Uh...did you miss the worldwide memo? 99% of the world's leading scientists have conclusive evidence that global warming is caused by humans. Now, when someone, let alone a good majority of a group of people, has the creditentials says that something's wrong, then I'll believe them because they know more about that subject than the common person.

Answer 8

To naturalplastics: There is plenty pf proof if you do your homework. In addition, though CO2 is not the most major greenhouse gas, it still has a very significant effect on the environment and there are specific reasons for targeting CO2 as opposed to other greenhouse gases:

Atmospheric levels of CO2 are determined by how much coal, natural gas and oil we burn and how many trees we cut down, as well as by natural processes like plant growth. Atmospheric levels of water vapor, on the other hand, cannot be directly controlled by people; rather, they are determined by temperatures. The warmer the atmosphere, the more water vapor it can hold. As a result, water vapor is part of an amplifying effect. Greenhouse gases like CO2 warm the air, which in turn adds to the stock of water vapor, which in turn traps more heat and accelerates warming. Scientists know this because of satellite measurements documenting a rise in water vapor concentrations as the globe has warmed.

The best way to lower temperature and thus reduce water vapor levels is to reduce CO2 emissions.

This link explains further:

http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011

Answer 9

There is not statisticaly significant evidence proving that the earth is in fact heating up. Throughout geological time the earth has gone through ice ages and warmer periods. It may or may not be associated with human impact, it is very hard to prove a correlation between the two. Experts may say the Earth temp. has risen a degree or two in the past few years, but that is not significant in the long run picture of what the climate is going to be like. There still is much to learn about the earth's climate and what causes fluctuations in it.

Answer 10

Because, we've only been recording temperatures for only a few hundred years now.

Why do you have to believe in global warming? How do you know for a fact that the current temperature fluctuations are nothing more than a natural cycle?

And i'm not saying i dont believe in global warming, but try and understand the other side. How do you think the ice age happened? Pollution? oh yeah, there were millions of factories and cars around when the first indians came to america. =]]]

Global warming is just a theory based on a short term analysis of the weather. Sure it is getting warmer, but is it our fault? or is it just natural?