Why do Believers resort to intimidation to "prove" global warming is real?

Question

All too often 'Believers' resort to name calling, bullying, intimidation, lies, and other underhand tactics to "prove" their belief that AGW is real.

If AGW is real, if it is truly happening, then why do they have to resort to such low brow tactics? Why not take the high road and just tell us if it will be warmer next month and how they came to their conclusions?

If they have the facts, why not use them for their arguments?

Does the fact that they resort to intimidation tactics imply that AGW isn't really happening, and this is more a political belief than a scientific argument?

It seems to me that if AGW was real, it would be so easy to shut up the "skeptics" with facts.

After all, their is no debate over Ohm's Law, the speed of light, or any other science that is in fact real.

Not even the "believers" can tell you if it will be warmer or colder next year any better than a coin toss.

Answer 1

I believe they would use science if they had real science to back their claims up instead of politcal groups like the ipcc.

Answer 2

I think its fair to say that members of both sides resort to name calling and lies.

Some of the stuff that the skeptics here say about Al Gore is unbelievable. Although I dislike the man, discrediting the entire AGW theory based on the fact he is a hypocrite is not something I would accept.

Both sides produce facts- which the other side ( the majority of) refuse to consider let alone accept.

I personally would be classed as a " believer" , but I take the time to read all the anti-AGW theories and links posted here. I am a scientist ( Physics , Warwick University) and I know that often things that we assume to be correct, are proved wrong. But that is not to say they always will be. So careful attention must be payed.

your comparison of something so simple ,such as ohms law ( which 10 yr olds are able to comprehend and use) , with Climatology is not viable. There is no debate over Ohms law because it is so clearly correct ( in our frame of reference). But as human beings we cannot see so clearly the entire climate of the planet. More complex methods are required, that most people will not be able to follow or understand.

Thats is also why it is not possible to tell you next years temperature.

We can however note changes in patterns and trends, the known chemical effects of substances etc, and from that data generate a likely hypothesis. For now thats the best that can be done.

It is never easy to "shut up" skeptics no matter how many facts you have. There are undoubtedly people who still believe the world is flat, not because they are stupid, but because they are unable to see the planet from space. But they will remain vocal skeptics until they see a picture from space.

In this way, people will remain skeptical of AGW until a " picture from space" equivalent can be found.

Answer 3

Yes, it is true that skeptic scientists are being bullied. I saw a report where one scientist from the IPPC disagreed with a report and went through great lengths to have his name removed before leaving that establishment. He confirmed he was not getting kickbacks from anyone such as EXXON, and he was and is not getting paid big dollars to make the anti-warming statements. He states he has been bullied by other scientists and politicians, and even received death threats. It does damage the issue greatly when people make threats and the scientists and press exaggerate the issue. It is almost like the behavior of the Catholic Church during Mid-evil times!

Answer 4

It's panic time. You see the Climate hasn't gotten any warmer since 1998. (the banner year for AGW fanatics) So the pressure is on. Time is the truth teller for all climate theories, no matter what the models say, if over time they are not accurate then your model is wrong.
Needless to say (but I'll say it anyway) the AGW models are slowly being proved wrong by old man time.
The fact is the first shoe dropped in 1998 for AGW proponents and they have been assured by their models that the other shoe will be dropping anytime now. One problem though, it hasn't dropped, the temperature isn't tracking the way they said it would. The temperature isn't correlating with the CO2 levels the way they said it would.
1998 was ten years ago...and it hasn't gotten any hotter! Where does that leave AGW?

Answer 5

Unfortunately, I think both sides use "low brow tactics" to try to get their point across.

There's always debate in all parts of science on issues that are not scientific laws. Theories are always debated back and forth by scientists. Many of these debates are never closely followed, but the global warming theory is argued much more vociferously due to people's political views.

Answer 6

Name-calling like calling people 'Believers', as if anthropogenic global warming were some sort of religion?

All people have to do is click on your user ID and browse a few of your answers to see "name calling, bullying, intimidation, lies, and other underhand tactics."

In my opinion, this is yet another one of those spam posts. No facts, no science, nothing actually related to the Yahoo Answers category, just a bunch of petty insults.

I'm curious why you did not answer the question about conflicts of interest... your education, career, industry, job title, and any funding from oil/mining/politics. Who pays you to harrass people like this?

Answer 7

The issue isn't specific to global warming.

When people are certain that their belief is truth and that those who disagree with them may be causing harm to the world, there is a motivation to vigorously advocate ones position in order to promote policies that the person thinks are most beneficial.

Hence, people who think that man-made green house gasses are warming the globe and that this warming will result in dire consequences are motivated to get the policies they feel will help enacted.

It's similar to those involved in the abortion debate or any other contentious issue.

Answer 8

Sorry Dr Jello, but I don't think you're the right person to ask a question like this. You've made connections both to Nazi's and communists when answering my questions in the past. I've never called you any names but I do find it intimidating to be connected with any of the above.

Answer 9

The actual scientific literature is not scary enough for them.

I have been reading the IPCC reports, (the reports that shared the nobel prize with Al Gore)

The IPCC reprots do not say anything as scary or extreme as what you see in the popular press.

I noticed that even one of the responders in particular tried to excuse this because from his point of view he is saving the planet so he has to make up something to create a dense of urgency. (In other words frighten people with something that is made up).

Of course then they get angry and frustrated because people no longer believe them because they destroyed their credibility when they started making up things.

That reminds me of a film that was popular on campus when I was in college back in the 1960's.

The title of the film was "Reefer Madness" the film showed people engaging in some very strange psychotic behavior after taking a few puffs of a marijuana cigarrette.

The film was popular because of the ridiculous lengths that the makers of the film had gone to in order to produce something that was supposed to be scary. Of course none of it was true.

The excuse the producers used is that they were trying to save young people from drug use so they had to make up something scary because the real behavior was not enough to scare them. Since they were trying to save young people from drug use, then it was acceptable (from their point of view) to make up things to make it very scary.

So the producers felt they were entitled to make something up. All the producers of this movie accomplished was to make a movie that was hilarious because it was so obviously badly done that it was funny, not scary. The producers of the film destroyed their credibility.

The movie of course did not scare anyone.

I would say that the exaggerated stories about Global Warming fall into the same category of truthfulness as the movie "Reefer Madness"

Answer 10

Jello, you missed the news story from about 3 weeks ago, you'd love it. Seems a group of the Chicken Little Global Warming crusaders were going to visit the North Pole to highlight all the damage Global Warming is causing, they had to turn back because get this it was TOO COLD for them, some of them even got frost bite on their poor little feet.

This was even on Yahoo's news postings

Answer 11

AGW = A____ Global Warming?

I don't know about lies, bullying, and underhanded tactics...

It's to emphasize the point, to make the matter an urgent one for a population that finds it difficult to listen. Concretely, would you act to "save the world" if it meant giving up your everyday comforts? A huge, huge majority, even without knowing it, only live for the moment and for themselves so it sometimes takes shock therapy to make them move.

And by the way, Ohm's Law or the speed of light does not affect us the way global warming does...

I also don't think global warming is a matter of belief...even without it people should realize that they are using too much non-renewable resources..

Quote from somebody: We don't own the earth, we're only loaning it from our children.