Why do people with no knowledge deny global warming?

Question

Isnt it better to cover your bases and take it seriously?

Answer 1

People with no knowledge either deny it or think we are causing it.

People who know, know it has been going on for the past 10,000 years. The glaciers have retreated 2,000 miles in that time! The oceans have risen hundreds of feet! Life has prospered as the crushing glaciers are driven back by the warmth of the sun.

Answer 2

Why do other people with even less knowledge blindly believe in global warming? Isn't it better to not do things that might damage the world economy?

Answer 3

You have obviously not covered your bases, you like a sheep are being lead to the slotter. I agree about not leaving lights. I don't believe in wast in general.

It’s funny when it comes to the earth, people think they are just so important that people must be causing it.The idea that humans can destroy the earth through "Global warming."is presumptuous and paternalistic. The earth will be here long after we’re gone and it shows us daily that it has no qualms about chewing us up and spitting us out whenever it feels like it.

Wasting energy is stupid, but for a moment imagine how much human energy is being wasted on global warming, which is at best a theory.

Answer 4

An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that ‘hundreds of IPCC scientists’ are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.”

In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”. Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60% of them were rejected by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.

Two of these seven were contacted by NRSP for the purposes of this article - Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand and Dr. Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph, Canada. Concerning the “Greenhouse gas forcing …” statement above, Professor McKitrick explained “A categorical summary statement like this is not supported by the evidence in the IPCC WG I report. Evidence shown in the report suggests that other factors play a major role in climate change, and the specific effects expected from greenhouse gases have not been observed.”

Dr. Gray labeled the WG I statement as “Typical IPCC doubletalk” asserting “The text of the IPCC report shows that this is decided by a guess from persons with a conflict of interest, not from a tested model.”

Determining the level of support expressed by reviewers’ comments is subjective but a slightly generous evaluation indicates that just five reviewers endorsed the crucial ninth chapter. Four had vested interests and the other made only a single comment for the entire 11-chapter report. The claim that 2,500 independent scientist reviewers agreed with this, the most important statement of the UN climate reports released this year, or any other statement in the UN climate reports, is nonsense.

“The IPCC owe it to the world to explain who among their expert reviewers actually agree with their conclusions and who don’t,” says Natural Resources Stewardship Project Chair climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball. “Otherwise, their credibility, and the public’s trust of science in general, will be even further eroded.”

That the IPCC have let this deception continue for so long is a disgrace. Secretary General Ban Kai-Moon must instruct the UN climate body to either completely revise their operating procedures, welcoming dissenting input from scientist reviewers and indicating if reviewers have vested interests, or close the agency down completely. Until then, their conclusions, and any reached at the Bali conference based on IPCC conclusions, should be ignored entirely as politically skewed and dishonest.

Answer 5

I am educated , and I deny that HUMANS are causing global warming. It is widely acknowledged that the earth is warming slightly, and probably only someone think-headed enough to completely ignore all data from every source could disagree with this.
Professor John Christy, who happens to be educated, disagrees with the theory of AGW:
http://epw.senate.gov/107th/chr_0502.htm

As does scientist Nir Shaviv (along with countless others):
http://motls.blogspot.com/2004/09/sunspots-correlations-with-temperature.html

Here's more info from USC backing up the sunspot-temperature correlation:
http://www.usc.edu/CSSF/History/2005/Projects/S0610.pdf

No doubt someone (not to mention names) will disagree with me on the impact that the sun has on climate. They will probably tell you that the sun can't be influencing this current warming trend, because the number of sunspots have dropped. I would like to point out that the earth has cooled slightly since 1998, too. Then they will most likely say that I am guilty of only looking at short-term climate change, without looking at the big picture. The problem with this is that the sun wouldn't influence the big picture, would it? It would control the "here and now" part of climate change.

So my point is that you are basically attacking people with false claims. It isn't the "uneducated" people who "deny" global warming, and the "educated" people who support it. You're over-generalizing and categorizing people without the grounds to do so.

Answer 6

For the same reason people with no knowledge of energy systems tell you that wind and solar is the answer to global warming.

Answer 7

I use to think environmentalists were only stupid. But with this global warming hysteria I now realize they are blind and deaf also. The Aztecs sacrificed people to make sure the sun came up each day. Same mentality.

Answer 8

One of the problems is that everyone seems to think they're an expert on global warming - just look at the number of people on here who provide answers about subject on which they have very little knowledge. The reality is that there's only a handful of contributors on here who actually understand global warming.

It's all but impossible to arrive at an educated conclusion if a person is ignorant of the subject (whatever it is - not just global warming), but that doesn't stop a lot of people. Consequently, you get a great many people speaking in ignorance. Some of them may not even realise that they're ignorant of the subject but the content of their answers and the fundemental errors they make quite clearly demonstrate this. It's interesting to look at who answers the technical questions on here regarding global warming - very rarely is it the skeptics (unless they're providing some flippant remark or parroting the words of others).

There are some people with a good understanding of global warming who, perhaps don't deny it, but do try to find alternative explanations and don't accept that humans are responsible. These people account for a very tiny proportion of those with knowledge of the subject. Amongst climatologists the numbers are less than one in a thousand.

Here's an interesting video that makes the specific point you make. It looks as the consequences of either acting or not acting on global warming... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI

Answer 9

some are just conpiracy theorists. almost all have knowledge to global warming but their problem is that they don't think critically. maybe others are the ones who earn much from the oil industry so they deny it.

Answer 10

cover your bases? whats that mean exactly? do you even know? global warming is a scam and your dumb enough to fall for it. without ANY PROOF your willing to "cover your bases"

Answer 11

i think it is hard for some people, especially religious people, to get over the fact that humans do have the power to alter our world. for centuries beore the industrial revolution, this was not true, we did not have the capacity to drastically alter teh planet, but in the modern age, we have become more than just smart animals, we have become a force of nature. that is a major hurdle for the people that think an imaginary dude controls everything, cause we are now in control, whether we like it or not and are ready for the responsibility or not, we are a powerful force of change on the planet.