Are climate sceptics just lazy?

Question

There is a major difference between listening to some self proclaimed expert spoon feeding you psuedo science and getting into the real science of climate change.
You can get your psuedo science through right-wing news sources, or you can getting your information through scientific journals. Are climate sceptics just too lazy to find out the real facts behind the warming?

Answer 1

Its easier to do nothing.

Answer 2

some interesting solutions. it is unusual how human beings equate PR funds with analyze funds. PR funds is used to sell and concept, inspite of the techniques advantages. analyze funds is used to solutions questions which would be of a few interest for some reason. The solutions at the instant are not huge-unfold, regardless of the reality that we'd have techniques abut what they may be. stable hypothesis checking out could make sparkling the techniques and enable us to bigger concentration on substantial relationships that would help get at solutions to questions. Greenwash is PR. Nazi's have been masters of PR which could make the denialist flow (makes use of PR, no longer technology) greater concerning the Nazi political flow. Nazi's have been very nationalistic and the denialist flow seems a "me first" flow. i'm involved to work out if any of the denailist can actually quantify their statements that BILLIONS have been pumped into the AGW flow. it is authentic. i'm conscious of 10s of thousands and thousands interior the previous due 80s and early Nineteen Eighteen Nineties, yet i'm undecided if the full international has positioned billions into the analyze over the final 2 many years. meanwhile, how lots has Exxon-Mobil;e spent in investment denialist over the final 2 many years (one business enterprise) that did notr flow into improving our awareness of the climate-ocean-terrestrial gadget, it is feedbacks which could mitigate or exacerbate climate substitute, and the aptitude impacts on human and ecological welfare. What replaced into the point of investment a denailist marketing campaign? The technology is relatively sparkling and there's a great consensus between people who actually do technology. the only ingredient the PR marketing campaign may be used for is to is to keep away from the politicians from taking lots necessary action so as that yet another 20 to 40 billion funds may be made the subsequent quarter devoid of aggravating approximately loosing one hundred million or so by using concerns approximately climate substitute. feels like a stable business enterprise investment for Exxon to spend 0.0125% of it is quarterly income to postpone action on one in all humanities doubtlessly maximum pressing issues. inspite of each and every little thing, a paper corporation might no longer likely care what the temperature is. i might anticipate this to maintain happening.

Answer 3

There are a lot of commercial, as well as political interests, that would be badly affected if changes in fossil fuel use were introduced. these represent crude oil and coal producers, car producers, power stations and many others, these are major players in the geopolitics of the world.
Some of the scientists who deny the validity of evidence that indicate global warming is a real threat, and it is man made, are not free from the influence of such interest groups.

Answer 4

I resent your implication.

How much research have you done before deciding that climate change was caused by human activity? Have you looked at the evidence of medieval warming period. Have you thought about the period between 1940 and 1970 where there was global cooling at the same time as increasing GHG's. Do you know how little global warming is directly attributable to CO2 and whether there are justifications for using positive feedbacks in computer models? Have you made your own mind up about this based on real research, or just followed a crowd?

Who are you calling lazy?

Answer 5

Nope. I'm not lazy, nor am I uneducated. I'm just skeptical about the whole "global warming" craze. Why? Because I've read studies claiming that global warming is real, and studies claiming that it's a farce. And no, I don't read or listen to "right wing" news sources...

So how would that make me "lazy"? Because I don't buy into the hype and take it at face value?

Perhaps instead of branding everyone who doesn't agree with the "chicken little" philosophy of the moment - be it global warming, ozone, impending ice age, etc - as right-wing wackos, you'd be better served with searching through many different sources of information from several different sources.

As for what the "real facts" are, you can have 100 different scientists look at the exact same data, and you will NOT have a 100% consensus as to what the data means. Each one will interpret the data according to his/her own personal ideals.

The same seems to be happening with the global warming craze. People seem to only acknowledge the opinions of scientists, etc. that conform to their own personal viewpoint as valid - and those that don't agree with the person's predisposition and prejudices, are written off as right, or left wing wackjobs.

Answer 6

Some are.

Others are just mistaken, like watchout. Water vapor may be the most important greenhouse gas, but it cannot cause global warming because....

Excess water vapor rapidly leaves the air as rain or snow. Excess CO2 stays there for years, and so is the main cause. More here:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11652

Some are conservatives who allow their politics to drive them. They might want to listen to these folks:

"Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

"National Review (the most prestigious conservative magazine) published a cover story this past week calling on conservatives to shake off denial and get into the climate policy debate"

"Pat Robertson (very conservative Christian leader) 'It is getting hotter and the ice caps are melting and there is a build up of carbon dioxide in the air. We really need to do something on fossil fuels.”

Science has proven that global warming is real:

"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”

Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)
Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut

Here are two summaries of the mountain of peer reviewed data that convinced Admiral Truly and the vast majority of the scientific community, short and long.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
summarized at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Good websites for more info:

http://profend.com/global-warming/
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/
http://www.realclimate.org
"climate science from climate scientists"

Answer 7

No quite the opposite. Imaging if all science stopped when the majority of their peers agreed with them. We would still be in the bronze age.

Science is knowledge. Consensus isn't knowledge. Man can only advance with knowledge.

Imagine declaring something is true just because someone like Newt Gingrich, Pat Robertson, or Richard H. Truly said they believe. Is this proof? No, this is being lazy by stopping research here.

This is the point where real scientist roll up their sleeves and start work.

Answer 8

The followers of the newest doomsday cult of Global Warming aren't lazy about the facts they worship. They are just flat wrong about what they mean. The climate is in a warm period with human caused gases LIKELY accounting for about a half of a degree. A leader of the left made one of the most asinine statements ever uttered by a human being that man made global warming is more dangerous than terrorist or nuclear weapons. How lazy do you have to be to not recognize that as pure mindless rants from a demogog.

Answer 9

Science woeks by having two opposing side argue out the merit of the theory. WIth out an opposing side, we would not be able to iron out the flaws of the theory.

Both sides have their army of mindless followers.

PS it's not only the right side who argue against global warming, but a large group of the left as well. I have been arguing with some. They wont concede my point thatthat we need to control our use of fossil fuel, despite the fact every one of them live in LA and the smog and foreign fuel price should hit their head, that something needs to be done.

As I said, Global warming is a theory, what I try to argue withthose who deny it, is that $4.00 a gallon Gasoline and L.A. smogs are facts.

Answer 10

well they cannot move very fast with their heads in the sand.

The reason is probably fear
of having to accept that fairy stories
are not true

or having to accept that God has lost control of the planet
or his subjects
or does not love them any more
or worse ,is incompetent

besides it is not good for business if it means having to change things ,such as not polluting
or having to stop deforestation if that is where your money comes from

Answer 11

Maybe if you stopped calling them names like "pseudo science" and "right wing" you could have an intelligent conversation with them instead of just calling each other names.