Why do anti-science cons continue to deny the scientific consensus on man made global warming?

Question

"Climatologists have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800's. A MAJORITY of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. Human activities contribute to global warming by enhancing Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect warms Earth's surface through a complex process involving sunlight, gases, and particles in the atmosphere. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as greenhouse gases. "
- SOURCE: NASA
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html

Answer 1

don't fall for the false right-left paradigm - and Mars is heating up too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LH_4j1My3U&feature=related

Answer 2

In the cons protection, medical consensus has been improper earlier than. Many scientists within the early side of the twentieth century believed within the ether which they concept used to be had to propagate gentle. Indeed there are medical theories which might be "permitted" now which might be founded on questionable technological know-how. Dark topic and String idea are 2 examples. Regardless, this situation has penalties which might be simply too grave to be taken frivolously. It isn't a debate if you want to come to be in educational embarrassment. It is the destiny of human form that's at stake. We would very conveniently input a factor of no go back where the outcome might be catastrophic. Blue Steel....ummm your first, moment and 5th hyperlinks are all approximately the identical Russian scientist: Khabibulo Absudamatov, who's honestly an astronomer, no longer a climatologist. Sorry you'll ought to do greater than that.

Answer 3

However, new studies by several scientists have just been published in several journals that indicate that the Greenhouse Gas model for climate change does not appear to fit the evidence.

They used satellite and high-altitude balloon telemetry to measure temperatures in the atmosphere, on the ground, and in the oceans.

The Greenhouse Gas model predicts that the atmosphere should warm up first, followed by the ground and the oceans.

It has now been determined that this is NOT the case.

Everything is warming at the same rate.

This indicates a likelihood that the warming is due to increased solar radiation, and increased solar wind activity.

The increased solar wind is impacting the ozone layer, allowing more high energy radiation from space (cosmic rays) to penetrate.

While greenhouse gases do contribute to some small extent, the majority of the warming is due to these increased energies.

Historical data bears up the finding that the Earth's climate has undergone cycles of warming and cooling in the past. Evidence from stalactites and from fossils has borne out this finding. There are records that when the Vikings established their settlements 1000 years ago in what are now Newfoundland & Labrador (a cold and barren place), they found semi-tropical conditions and called it "Vineland".

These findings are also borne out by the observed fact that the polar caps on Mars are currently receding. This cannot be due to any greenhouse gases produced on Earth.

The fact that the Greenhouse Gas theory is being so aggressively pushed by governments leads me to believe that "someone" has vested interests in trying to convince the people of the world that this theory is the TRUTH.

What can those interests be I wonder? Perhaps someone is making a lot of money selling carbon certificates, or perhaps someone wishes to increase government controls on what fuels can be used, or to support rationing schemes...

Answer 4

Silly lib. I read an article that gave a figure of 13% of scientists that support man-made global warming. That is hardly a majority, is it? And not all of them were climatologists who specialize in that field. I also read an article by the National Weather Service that their temperature readings for the last 30 years must be held suspect because of the locations of their thermometer stations.

Science does not work on "consensus." Science works on theory and evaluation and constant testing. Before Columbus, the scientific "consensus" was that the earth was flat - did that make it true? In the days of Aristotle, the scientific "consensus" was that the earth was the center of the universe - did that make it true? History is full of scientific "consensus" that has fallen flat in the face of hard evidence and time.

Those that shout "consensus" and "the debate is over" are merely trying to silence the voices of the MAJORITY of scientists that agree that there is no substantial proof that man is the cause of any global climate change, whether it be warming or cooling.

But then, I imagine it is pretty warm where your head seems to be stuck, isn't it?

Answer 5

If they did than they would have to start supporting efforts to clean up the environment. That would mean that precious industrialists might actually have to stop polluting and spend a little money as if they really cared about anything other than money, money, money. If cons had their way our cities would resemble 1840s London with smog so thick one can't see anything let alone breath while at the same time having workers work 6 1/2 days a week 12 hours a day for maybe a dollar a day while the factory owners live in country estates and run around in fancy cars, play golf, go on 2 month trips to their home in Majorca, Palm Springs, The Bahamas and so forth. Believing scientists gets in the way of these desires. After all they have very nearly the 1840s London in China and parts of Mexico and they are loving it. If they have to pay attention to the environment that eats into their bottom line. Yes, it is all about money, money, money.

Answer 6

Well, Al Gore got more votes and still lost. Some 65% of the population believed Iraq and Saddam were involved with 9/11.

Consensus does not necessarily equate to correctness, it merely means that more participants have swallowed the hook. There is more than enough good science out there contradicting the consensus opinion to merit skepticism.

Even most skeptics allow that taking care of the environment is a good thing. What they doubt is that jumping off a cliff into some "solution" that may be worse than the problem isn't necessarily a good thing.

Answer 7

Are these the same climatologists that stated the Earth was in a cooling trend (during the 70's)?

Answer 8

There is no consensus on global warming, any attempt to claim that there is one is intellectual dishonesty at it's best.

For every study that you produce that claims global warming exists and that it is directly caused by man, I can produce an equally well written and peer reviewed study that refutes it.

Thanks for trying to skew the fact.

Answer 9

Because of the love of money and what one can buy with it ! Its fine that they are skeptical but I just don't understand whats wrong in having s cleaner world !

Answer 10

I'm going to believe the founder and creator of the Weather Channel who knows Global Warming being a human cause is BS, before I believe in the brainless scientists who follow Gore and plan for Global Socialism.

Answer 11

I'm a True Conservative and Republican, but I DO believe thats human's fault for global warming.