are the people denying the science behind global warming the same people who were discrediting the science . .

Question

behind the fact that cigarettes harm your lungs?




and by "deniers" i mean people who don't use any scientific data at all to prove their skeptical beliefs, but rather just write off the whole climate change thing as:
1 a hoax
2 say there's this one scientists who doesn't believe in it (i.e. "guy from weather channel doesn't believe in it, therefore it's not real [but if the guy from the weather channel DID believe in it i wouldn't be basing my opinion of it off him"]) when having absolutely no knowledge of him argument
3 claim al gore "invented" it, even though al gore was born a half century AFTER it was predicted
4 claim that because a minority of scientists believed in global cooling in the 70's, science can't be trusted
5 etc.

Answer 1

Yes, they are.

One of the most oft-cited skeptical experts is Richard Lindzen, who does not believe that smoking causes lung cancer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#Views_on_health_risks_of_passive_smoking

Another is Fred Singer, who doesn't think smoking causes lung cancer or that UV causes melanoma.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer#Publication_on_health_effects_of_tobacco

Another is Frederick Seitz.

"Shortly before his retirement from Rockefeller University in 1979, Seitz began working as a paid permanent consultant for the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, advising their research program."

Seitz was the author of the bogus Oregon Petition. Whenever someone says "there is a list of 17,000 scientists who are against global warming" or something along those lines, they're referring to the Oregon Petition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_petition

One of the most oft-cited websites by global warming deniers is JunkScience.com. It was founded by Phillip Morris Tobacco Company to depict peer-reviewed science linking smoking to lung cancer as "junk science" while depicting corporate-funded research finding no link as "sound science". Now ExxonMobile funds the site to do the same for global warming and greenhouse gases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkscience#History

Answer 2

Again I find myself utterley amazed at some people's unwillingness to use their own eyes. Global warming is a real and current effect. Why are people still debating this? Watch the news, read the papers, take a look out of your own windows if you can tear yourselves away from MTV long enough. The planet is getting screwed. Volcanoes put more pollution into the Atmosphere? More than what? More than power plants? They go seven days a week 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, volcanoes don't. More than car emissions? No again it's a 24/7 equation like everything else that is happening. I'm not saying that this planet doesn't have its own cyclical nature, it does. Our influence is throwing that off balance. the planet is overcompensating to offset our modern lifestyle's effects on the enviroment, and by modern I mean stemming from the industrial revolution, not just over the last fifty years. This planet has not had a break in over 250 years. I believe that is how long our rapidly advancing technology has taken it's toll. Pepole do not accept the time scale. they still think it's only the last fifty or so. How long have we been farming livestock on a massive scale? One cow plus four stomachs, times that by, ...I don't know. A million? A billion? I've heard people scoff at the idea that a simple beast of burden can add to global warming, but I put it to you it all comes down to numbers. Our farming practices have had to keep pace with the demand of our ever growing society. More factories, more people in employment, more mouths to feed. As a species we are, sadly, more prone to the quick fix than a patient one. Our technology has developed faster than our conscience. It has to be now, it has to be bigger faster more and damn the consequence. I do not hold to the belief that we will destroy the planet, I think it more likely that the planet will destroy us first. Through flood, through earthquake. Suppose if you will that this planet is itself a living organism. Like any organism, if something starts to make it sick or unwell it has defenses to fight such an infection or disease. I put it to any open minded person reading this, and after reading some of the examples of 'head in the sand denialbilty' I realise their may not be many, if this planet has such attributes akin to other organisms, then we would do best to start treating it as a friend instead of as an enemy.

Answer 3

My argument against it is the same as always. Climate changes naturally over the years, always has, always will. No one knows whether nowadays version is from manmade things, or a naturally occuring cycle, because climate hasn't been studied long enough to know that difference. Mars also has global warming. Are people there causing it too?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

My personal opinion is that mankind thinking they have brains, ability, means, whatever to change an entire planet is extremely egotistical.

Edit: Linywhatever yyour name is? When exactly did I say that I know everything there is to know about climate. I didn't, all I said is that scientists can't say with certainty why it is warmer. Natural climate change happens over time, face it. And how this exactly works is unknown, regardless of what you want to think. They would have to know why and how something happens to determine the cause of it, whether it be manmade or natural. Throwing out this fact to push your agenda is bad science.

Now that I explained that in fact I do not claim to know everything about climate(even though that should have been obvious), now I am going to ask two more questions.
1> Why is it happening on Mars? There is no human life there, and never has been. Therefore, man can't be causing it, unless we pollute so much that it is all going to Mars as well, which even the most ardent believer of global warming wouldn't take seriously.
2. I was going to try to avoid this, but why do people who complain about it go around driving big SUVs, private jets, own big homes that use large amounts of electricity, so on so forth.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm
http://www.progressiveu.org/133800-al-gore-the-fleecing-of-the-sheeple
http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/NussbaumOnDesign/archives/2007/02/gores_carbon_fo.html
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/09/gulfstream-from-nashville.html

Other general links for the hoax theory.
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Environment/warming_hoax.htm
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3400
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6129

Answer 4

no most deny it simple because a democrat is trying to raise awarness about,which many poster here have shown.i think it shouldn't be a political issue but an human issue,its issue we should want people to look into not just dismiss because a democrat said it and u don't agree with his politics.

futhermore to say people don't have an effect on the environment is just irresponsible what ever happen to the hole in ozone layer that was discovered by european scientist,the hole was linked to chemicals found in human made household products the only chemicals that could deplete ozone so to dismiss the fact that humans don't have an effect on our envorinment is iressponsible and dagerous for future gneration.

and yes the global warming and cooling in the past went on without humans so what happens when u throw humans into the equation with unnatural chemicals being pumped into the atmosphere

Answer 5

If Al Gore is the best spokesman you can come up with; you'll never convince us. Here's the thing, look at the records. In 1933 there were record highs in the Great Lakes region, 70+ degrees. In other years, record lows. It's all cyclical. Many of these scientists need grants for research and must find something wrong to get the money again.

So, we're not likely to fall for it unless you get different people for the cause. I trust a 4 year old over Al Gore.

Answer 6

Around 25 thousand years ago an Ice age ended as the planet warmed .

As the planet warms conditions for another Ice age begin to develop .

The Ice melts because it sits on a warm planet and it is the earths core which is under extreme pressure from the weight of the land and the oceans that as the ice melts triggers volcanic activity . This activity leads to An Ice age and then we begin a warming period .

Right now we are at that point in which its possible for increased volcanic activity to darken the skys and plumit the planet into another ice age .

The extra pressure of trillions of gallons of water from Ice melt in the oceans will put pressure that cause major volcanic activity .

Its the earth thats warming along with increased solar activity that is driving the weather and the melting caps .

Answer 7

1. the only people that deny that smoking is bad for your health, were the tobacco companies.

2. The Global warming issue is MOSTLY propaganda. Al gore data on effects of global warming were intentionaly dramatic.....notice the use of the word IF in his movie.

3. Our record of observed weather is too insignificant to predict Global weather change.

4. Our data collected from Ice cores suggests an ice age to warm age shift as a normal phenomenon.

5. Politicians and scienctist know where thier bread is buttered...both live off political intrest and grants.

6. Even if humans were effecting the climate ..like acid rain....legislation to clean the air, water, and alternative fuels would be easier to achieve idividually on thier own merits.

example: Dependence to foreign oil is weakening our counrtry...lets change it....would be easier to sell than the worlds about to melt, flood, and turn into an ice cube.

Answer 8

What is politically fueled bullshit science? Something untrue? Or opposing what is expounded by 10 to 1 scientist, just to oppose?

Is It Happening?

Yes. Earth is already showing many signs of worldwide climate change.

• Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

• The rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according to a number of climate studies. And the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850.

• The Arctic is feeling the effects the most. Average temperatures in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia have risen at twice the global average, according to the multinational Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report compiled between 2000 and 2004.

• Arctic ice is rapidly disappearing, and the region may have its first completely ice-free summer by 2040 or earlier. Polar bears and indigenous cultures are already suffering from the sea-ice loss.

• Glaciers and mountain snows are rapidly melting—for example, Montana's Glacier National Park now has only 27 glaciers, versus 150 in 1910. In the Northern Hemisphere, thaws also come a week earlier in spring and freezes begin a week later.

• Coral reefs, which are highly sensitive to small changes in water temperature, suffered the worst bleaching—or die-off in response to stress—ever recorded in 1998, with some areas seeing bleach rates of 70 percent. Experts expect these sorts of events to increase in frequency and intensity in the next 50 years as sea temperatures rise.

• An upsurge in the amount of extreme weather events, such as wildfires, heat waves, and strong tropical storms, is also attributed in part to climate change by some experts.

The report, based on the work of some 2,500 scientists in more than 130 countries, concluded that humans have caused all or most of the current planetary warming. Human-caused global warming is often called anthropogenic climate change.

Answer 9

I think the Right DOES believe in human accelerated global warming, but also thinks it's too harmful to the economy to do anything about it. And so they have decided it is expedient to deny the science.

I, for one, do not think all is lost. We can do something about it and we can also survive economically.

Is the international scientific consensus correct? Of course it is.

Edit: To answer the question as phrased, the 2 groups of deniers probably overlap but are not the same. To slow or stop human-accelerated global warming will take a group effort by every nation on Earth - too "collectivist" for some of our brilliant isolationists.

Edit 2: Doesn't anyone know the difference between "affect" and "effect" these days? Thank goodness for Mrs. Burling, my 4th grade teacher, and a competent one.

Answer 10

How about because this line of bull**** has been around for a while. In the 70's it was beware of the coming ice age. We live in a cyclical environment, that has been "cycling" for as long as the planet has been in existence. Too me global warming is the same as Chicken Little saying "the sky is falling". Do I think we should do our part to keep our air clean and safe? Absolutely! Do I believe we can save the Earth by buying "carbon credits"? Absolutely not! What a money making crock!