Is global warming denial no more than a typical conspiracy theory like aliens at Area 51?

Question

Global warming denial seems to be becoming a more and more radical mindset, less and less connected to reality.

When asked to explain what is causing global warming, deniers cannot present valid scientific arguments.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AiYUrYRGadqG8IBJkxgXFDDsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20080317123649AA8alyX

When asked to explain the scientific data such as a cooling upper atmosphere, again the deniers fail.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AiYUrYRGadqG8IBJkxgXFDDty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071215102828AAxyWW6

When asked why the scientific experts overwhelmingly support the AGW theory, deniers either wrongly claim this is not the case

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm

Or claim it's all a vast conspiracy, that hundreds of thousands of scientists are perpetrating a massive hoax just so they can get grants a little more easily.

Has global warming denial been reduced to a few tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy theorists?

Answer 1

Nope.  Thanks to the Pope, it's now religious heresy.  Good thing I'm not Catholic.

Answer 2

**** global warming

Answer 3

Isn't it the promoters of AGW that get children to run around saying 'the world is going to end' - 'Polar Bears are going extinct'?

I see that more smacks of conspiracy.

Speaking of area 51 -

Here's a good laugh!!!  It will offend hard core whackos!

Subject: Fw: July 8, 1947



Many of you will recall that on July 8, 1947, almost

exactly 60 Years ago, witnesses claim that an

unidentified flying object (UFO) with five aliens

aboard crashed onto a sheep and cattle ranch just

outside Roswell , New Mexico. This is a well-known

incident that many say has long been covered up by the

U.S. Air Force and other federal Agencies and

organizations.

However, what you may NOT know is that in the month of

March 1948, nine months after that historic day, the

following people were born:

Albert A. Gore, Jr.

Hillary Rodham

John F. Kerry

William J. Clinton

Howard Dean

Nancy Pelosi

Dianne Feinstein

Charles E. Schumer

Barbara Boxer

See what happens when aliens breed with sheep?

Answer 4

It is getting to that point. Some people just aren't bright enough to recognize when they've been owned. I would be red-faced embarrassed if I had to attack the peer review process as a way to defend global warming denial. But this leaves people like Jello undaunted. When people aren't wise enough to know how solidly they have lost a debate, then no amount of further debate can change them. Not until the frigging sea level reaches their front door will they recognize there's something going on.

That, and I'm convinced that half the people who post here are elementary school kids on recess break.

Answer 5

Dana - you sound more like a religious fanatic everyday.  You can't bear the idea that people raise legitimate questions about your cult.

Answer 6

The answer to your question is that it is a dumb question that is more about insult than actually asking something.  Just for the record, I have answered your questions but you have already made up your mind and  you don't listen or pretend to know better.  The reality is, you don't.  The reality is also that since your mind is made up, you never will.  Remember that a warm day can be a great thing if you learn to open your mind.

Answer 7

Well, tin-foil hats don't work in all this cold weather.  

Maybe we're huddled under our Polar Bear rugs, but we're not wearing tin-foil hats.

Answer 8

The denial is worse. At least "area 51" is a real airfield.

Answer 9

We do give infromation but you shot it down becasue you can't accept the truth.

Answer 10

eric

Your second link has a glaring lie in the figures for the cost of oil verses alternative energy.  In fact it has several glaring lies.

   The author makes the point that alternative energy has had massive subsidies. That is simply not true.  The only thing that has had massive subsidies is the oil industry that he is trying to protect.   He does give a passing mention to military costs, while leaving out that they amount to $100 billion annually, and never even mentions oil subsidies of over $80 billion annually.  

by comparison, alternative energy subsidies are a tiny fraction of that, and have none of the other hundreds of billions $$ per year in other hidden costs that oil has.

  This untruthfulness tells me that he has an axe to grind, and as a result ignores the truth about the costs of energy.

I wonder how much of the other data is tweaked to conform with his beliefs.

Answer 11

The global warming deniers are growing fewer and fewer.  Like Area 51, it is hard to prove or disprove global warming 100% because of uncertainties about what the future will bring, but way more immediate and circumstantial evidence points toward a trend in rising temperatures.

Many deniers of global warming think that if it's cold today, then global warming does not exist. Some of them get a little scientific about it and point out that the earth has gone through many changes of climate and that what we are experiencing is just a natural cycle, despite the fact that the current rate is much quicker and the real cause is pretty obvious.

This view is encouraged by industry, which has a lot to lose if people start demanding an end to pollution.  They would have to spend millions cleaning up their factories, face stiff fines, or go out of business if they were compelled to stop polluting.

However, despite the fact that it still gets cold (sometimes) in winter, many people are noticing that record high temperatures are occurring all over the country.  People are dying from extremely hot temperatures, and that won't be ignored.

The conspiracy theorists can flap their jaws all they want, but it won't change the fact that more countries are industrializing, more cars are being driven each year, and that plant life that would absorb a lot of pollution is being torn down at an alarming rate to make way for hot pavement.

Answer 12

The problem is that no matter how much evidence comes out against global warming from here on out will be ignored because the so called "learned" folks here have already made up their minds. The same type of arrogance came from those who had a "consensus" at one time that the world was flat.

Answer 13

There's clearly a level of desperation from some of the doubters.  Their history goes like this:

1) It's not warming

2) OK, so it may be warming a little

3) The satellites don't show it warming

4) OK, so the satellites had to be corrected and it is warming

5) But the sun must be the cause

6) OK, the sun isn't the cause for any recent warming

7) The scientific process must be corrupt

Answer 14

Dana,

Those who deny that the earth is warming are simply wrong. The climatologists are correct, the earth is warming. It is a short-term trend (less than 1,000 years) within a long-term trend (10,000 years plus) of global cooling, as geologists have affirmed.

Where some of us have problems is in the statements that humans are responsible for the current short-term trend. One can link carbon in the atmosphere to global warming, but the link is a bit tenuous since, in the past, increases in atmospheric carbon have followed, not led, increases in global temperatures.

Humans have an effect on the global climate because we are part of the enormous complex system that is the global climate. How much that effect is, how it compares to tectonic activity, volcanism, solar flares, near-earth-orbit object activity and perhaps many factors of which we have no knowledge, is not known.

With an MS you understand what a complex system is. Claiming to have complete knowledge of the global climate complex system is hubris; claiming to have perfect understanding of that knowledge is arrogance. But complete knowledge and perfect understanding underly the proposed remedy - transfer enormous amounts of wealth from countries where scientific inquiry is promoted to countries where scientific inquiry is stymied. The statement "The scientific debate is over" would never be made by a scientist, but it would be made by a politician. As you are aware, the scientific debate is not over about Newtonian physics; why should it be over about a topic we've been examining for only a few decades?

I am not a denier. I believe in global warming. I am prepared to be convinced that CO2 emissions are the primary cause of the current short-term trend. But explaining a phenomenon in a complex system by looking at only one of perhaps millions of factors isn't science, it's religion.

Answer 15

Coolest Winter Since 2001 For U.S., Globe, According To NOAA Data

ScienceDaily (Mar. 15, 2008) — The average temperature across both the contiguous U.S. and the globe during climatological winter (December 2007-February 2008) was the coolest since 2001, according to scientists at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. In terms of winter precipitation, Pacific storms, bringing heavy precipitation to large parts of the West, produced high snowpack that will provide welcome runoff this spring.

U.S. Winter Temperature Highlights

In the contiguous United States, the average winter temperature was 33.2°F (0.6°C), which was 0.2°F (0.1°C) above the 20th century average – yet still ranks as the coolest since 2001. It was the 54th coolest winter since national records began in 1895.

Winter temperatures were warmer than average from Texas to the Southeast and along the Eastern Seaboard, while cooler-than-average temperatures stretched from much of the upper Midwest to the West Coast.

With higher-than-average temperatures in the Northeast and South, the contiguous U.S. winter temperature-related energy demand was approximately 1.7 percent lower than average, based on NOAA’s Residential Energy Demand Temperature Index.

U.S. Winter Precipitation Highlights

Winter precipitation was much above average from the Midwest to parts of the West, notably Kansas, Colorado and Utah. Although moderate-to-strong La Niña conditions were present in the equatorial Pacific the winter was unique for the above average rain and snowfall in the Southwest, where La Niña typically brings drier-than-average conditions.

During January alone, 170 inches of snow fell at the Alta ski area near Salt Lake City, Utah, more than twice the normal amount for the month, eclipsing the previous record of 168 inches that fell in 1967. At the end of February, seasonal precipitation for the 2008 Water Year, which began on October 1, 2007, was well above average over much of the West.

Mountain snowpack exceeded 150 percent of average in large parts of Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Oregon at the end of February. Spring run-off from the above average snowpack in the West is expected to be beneficial in drought plagued areas.

Record February precipitation in the Northeast helped make the winter the fifth wettest on record for the region. New York had its wettest winter, while Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Vermont, and Colorado to the West, had their second wettest.

Snowfall was above normal in northern New England, where some locations posted all-time record winter snow totals. Concord, N.H., received 100.1 inches, which was 22.1 inches above the previous record set during the winter of 1886-87. Burlington, Vt., received 103.2 inches, which was 6.3 inches above the previous record set during the winter of 1970-71.

While some areas of the Southeast were wetter than average during the winter, overall precipitation for the region was near average. At the end of February, two-thirds of the Southeast remained in some stage of drought, with more than 25 percent in extreme-to- exceptional drought.

Drought conditions intensified in Texas with areas experiencing drought almost doubling from 25 percent at the end of January to 45 percent at the end of February.

Global Highlights

The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the 16th warmest on record for the December 2007-February 2008 period (0.58°F/0.32°C above the 20th century mean of 53.8°F/12.1°C). The presence of a moderate-to-strong La Niña contributed to an average temperature that was the coolest since the La Niña episode of 2000-2001.

While analyses of the causes of the severe winter storms in southern China continues, NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory scientists are focusing on the presence of unusually strong, persistent high pressure over Eastern Europe, combined with low pressure over Southwest Asia. This pattern directed a series of storms across the region, while northerly low level flow introduced cold air from Mongolia. Unusually high water temperatures in the China Sea may have triggered available moisture that enhanced the severity of these storms.

Record Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent in January was followed by above average snow cover for the month of February. Unusually high temperatures across much of the mid- and high-latitude areas of the Northern Hemisphere in February began reducing the snow cover, and by the end of February, snow cover extent was below average in many parts of the hemisphere.

While there has been little trend in snow cover extent during the winter season since records began in the late 1960s, spring snow cover extent has been sharply lower in the past two decades as global temperatures have increased.

February Temperature Highlights

February was 61st warmest in the contiguous U.S. and 15th warmest globally on record. For the U.S., the temperature was near average, 0.2°F (0.1°C) above the 20th century average of 34.7°F (1.5°C), which was 2.0°F (1.1°C) warmer than February 2007.

Globally, the February average temperature was 0.68°F/0.38°C above the 20th century mean of 53.8°F/12.1°C.

Answer 16

Congratulations:  You were able to stump a bunch of high school students.  I guess that proves me wrong.

A long time ago I asked a question that asked for proof that the ice core sample shows proof co2 causing temperature increases.  Like skillful politicians you all dance around the issue, but no could provide me with proof.  By your logic that proves the AGW theory wrong.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

I do not know about you, but if people from NASA were to start saying the moon landings were fake, I would not dismiss it.  The notion of exterior motives come from within the climate science community itself.

As for proof, here are three good essays from people who have examine the literature and have come up the opinion that AGW is not proven.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics...

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images...

In the past you have blasted me for being a denier.  Even though I try to back up all of my claims with references.  The fact that you dismiss my claims without answering them, makes you the denier.

Answer 17

Dana,

Is that a real question or an attempt to insult people?  Wow, you really lowered yourself with this one.

Answer 18

Dana, what's your point?  Is your whole life dedicated to getting more people to become joiners...  joiners like the 'ban dihydrogen monoxide' skit that Penn and Teller did?

I perceive you as nothing more than someone who just can't handle that other people don't believe in the same thing that you do.  We all have our own opinions, aren't we entitled to disagree with the notion that AGW or GW is real.

This is America after all.  I don't have to believe in the same thing you do, and by asking a question like this, you're not enhancing your position.  A question like this is acerbic, snippy, and well, rude.  It doesn't offer any more evidence one way or another, all it really does is lead some credence that all of the AGW and GW people can't handle it when someone doesn't believe it.

It's almost like you're insulted to the core that someone doesn't believe in AGW or GW.

But to answer your question:  No, GW denial isn't more than a typical conspiracy theory like aliens at Area-51.

AGW or GW is unproven, just as much as aliens at Area-51.  Plenty of eyewitnesses, not enough data.

There are skeptics of both theories.   Why can't you handle that?

Answer 19

My favorite conspiracies are: Big oil is paying skeptic scientists and skeptics are deliberately trying to confuse the issue so we don't have to change our lifestyles. As a matter of fact I have to run of to a skeptic meeting right now. this one has a guest speaker from the Illuminati.

Answer 20

It is the conspirators who spread the discrediting rumor of conspiracy theories, to hide behind .

Aliens are/were REAL,so is area 51

Now Global Warming follows the same course of ridicule to undermine the reality  or belief ,

To maybe end up as a conspiracy theory or so they hope

Have you seen Zeitgeist ,if not step into the light

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

it points fingers and gives reasons as to who the enemy is

a discredited Global Warming could be part of their strategy as well.

The foregoing text was written  under duress ,

and i did not mean any of it

they made me do it

I was just joking.

lol

Cant be to careful these days

and i am Chinese and live in Taiwan

Answer 21

What makes it different Dana, is it's part of a political agenda, along with anti-stem cell research, anti-family planning, and Creationism.

I do agree with those who said these "movements" are starting to die down now that Bush has quit beating the drum.  Since he repudiated his stand against AGW they seem to be wandering off in search of some other scapegoat.