What motivates Global Warming skeptics here?

Question

It is curious that so many skeptics here spend so much time here denying modern scientific climatology. What motivates these knuckle draggers to do spend so much time and energy here doing this?

Answer 1

There is nothing true in the leftist brand of "scientific climatology".  Most of this type of climatologists are on Al Gore's payroll, and wouldn't recognize a thermometer if they tripped over it.  Nor are they intelligent enough to see their mistakes.

Skeptical deniers like facts, and the truth.  Leftists follow lies and deceit.

Answer 2

It's not the question of Global Warming, it's the belief that Man has the power to cause, or stop it. How arrogant does someone have to be to believe "They Have the Power", More than the oceans, Sun, and all the other forces of nature. This world has gone thru many cycles of hot and cold in it's lifetime. Why does man think that they are the cause this time and it was a natural occurrence every other time. Do we also cause continental drift? Earthquakes, the tides? And how is man causing the warming on the other planets in our solar system? Global Warming is not the end of the world, it's called evolution.

Answer 3

I think the problem is we realize there is no scientific evidence supporting the AGW theory. We realize that this has  become a political issue devised to redistribute the wealth.

There is currently no evidence that man has made any significant contribution to climate change.

Some interesting facts.

1. During most of the past 2,000 years, the temp has been about the same or higher. Currently, we are barely over the average for the last 2,000 years.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index....

2. During the medieval warm period (820 – 1040 AD), Greenland supported farming. Those areas previously farmed are now covered in glaciers. Obviously the melting and reformation of glaciers is a cyclical occurrence.

3. The earth experienced a little ice age which ended around the late 1860's or so. This is about the time man started recording temperatures. This would be like measuring a lake depth after a severe drought, then worrying about it flooding as it rose to normal levels.

4. The earth has been warming for the last 18,000 years, since the last major glacier time period. During this time frame, the glaciers have been melting at a fairly consistent rate. Also, for most of the last 1 billion years, the earth had NO glaciers or ice coverage.

http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/i...

5. The AGW theory states that CO2 is the primary driver of temperature. They arrived at this idea because they did not know of anything else which could cause it. But during the 70's and during the current decade, temperatures dropped while CO2 continued to rise. This means that natural occurrences are driving temp, not CO2.

6. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation and sun spots provides a much better correlation to earths' temperature than CO2 levels ever have.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/200...

http://motls.blogspot.com/2004/09/sunspo...

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_r...

7. Polar Bears are experiencing a population boom. Coke sales in the arctics are through the roof. Polar Bears have been around for thousands of years, and remember, we are only at the average for the last 2,000 years. They lived through all the previously warmer climates.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/...

8. Many glaciers are expanding. Even Antarctica is growing on 98% of is land mass. Only 2% is melting.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1...

9. There is no consensus on AGW. This was a lie that has been propagated by the media.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckt...

10. Yes we emit CO2 into the atmosphere and it is a greenhouse gas, but, we only contribute about .28% of all the greenhouse effect. Water vapor makes up about 95% of the greenhouse effect. CO2 and other trace gases round out the greenhouse gases at about 5% for all of them. Of that 5%, only 3% is CO2, and most of that is natural. Again, our contribution to the greenhouse effect is a paltry .28%

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenh...

11. The spread of disease is not attributed mainly to temperature. If this were the case, Florida would be a giant festering disease ridden cesspool. Economic standing is the primary determining factor in the spread of disease. Poor cultures can not fight the disease or eradicate the pests like more successful nations.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12077886...

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.h...

12. Natural climate disasters (hurricanes, cyclones, etc) have never been scientifically linked to global warming (whether natural or man made).

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppa...

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?i...

Answer 4

1. Most of them are evolutionist, So they have lost trust in people.

2. They have made so many false predictions,

3. If there is global warming, It will take the whole globe to stop it if it be possible.

4. Global warming is in the Bible and must come to past.

Answer 5

It depends on what YOU think GW is.  What are people skeptical of exactly?  Most people can verify rather quickly that the earth is warming and the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing.  Who cares.  People are skeptical that GW is the end of the world.

Hansen politicized his "science" from 1976 on.  He knows exactly what he's doing and its quite profitable to him. Us pesky "deniers" are skeptical that GW is the end of the world, and rightly so.  It's laughable when deniers are said to be motivated by politics as if scientists are somehow apolitical.  They are not.

As for me, my motivation is to reduce the popularity of AGW until climate scientists no longer receive funding.  It won't take long.

Answer 6

We do it to expose the fact that the believers engage in namecalling, exaggeration, revision and puffery, none of which you can back up.

But then, you're doing a fine enough job of that already, so perhaps it is a waste of time, as you say.

Answer 7

It's political and sometimes its just personal, we also do it help other skeptics who just started to question global warming.

Answer 8

It because we desire to spread the truth.  

We desire to stop a repeat of 1920's Europe when people and governments embraced the pseudo science of Eugenics, as there is no difference between the believers of 100 years ago and the believers of today.

Science cannot predict the future.  This is the field of mystics and con men.

Answer 9

Because it's not about saving the environment, it's about taxation, restriction, control, and higher prices.  Many proposals will end up using more land and resources, not less; and will lead to more pollution not less.  If AGW politicians, the media, and those here promoted bringing back electric cars, said no to carbon trading and carbon offsets, targeting those who break laws and pollute the most (rather than "the little people" who use/pollute a lot less), and talk about hemp or used cooking oil for fuels (and not corn) for fuels--they would have more support and wouldn't look like such liars and thieves.

Answer 10

This planet has been here for 4.5 billion years, not 70 million. That's a big oopsy there Jon. But he has a point. The Earth has been through tougher times, if you know anything about it's history. Most people who are all about global warming know jack S**t about it's history and how it's been changing for hundreds of millions of years. 2 degrees and people freak out. The world is ending! Yeah because every one is going crazy. Get real people.

Answer 11

It's fear and denial, pure and simple.  The deniers are afraid that global warming mitigation will result in government regulation, and they're deathly afraid of government.  They're scared of a carbon tax which might make their gas guzzling SUVs unaffordable.  Most of all, they're afraid of change.

This fear motivates them to try and convince others that they're right.  They know that in reality they're in the vast minority (and for good reason), and their best chance at convincing others they're right is to flood websites like this with misinformation.  It's sad.

Answer 12

MONEY

Answer 13

Nobody likes to admit they're wrong.

When you confront the beliefs of the ignorant the first reaction is violent denial.

Environmentalism implicates our very way of life as the source of the problem.

It's no wonder then that the majority of the population see environmentalism as a fringe movement.  

And radical environmentalists in particular as dangerous.

The more evidence that is seen, the more urgent the warnings, the more determined the opposition will become.

Most people haven't the first clue what we are up against.  Even the mainstream environmental movement misses it.

Just you wait and see.  Wars will be fought over this.  

Surprise!   Due to our (the western worlds) arrogant disregard for the planet - we will be be the target.

Answer 14

Care and concern.

Answer 15

Some are honestly mistaken.  Others see everything as a conspiracy.

Many are conservatives who take their politics to great lengths, ignoring any information that conflicts.  They might listen to these guys, who are no fans of taxes or government control.

"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 calling on conservatives to shake off denial and get into the climate policy debate"

quote from above:

"....they wouldn't look like such liars and thieves.  Calling people names makes your side look less credible"

Anybody besides me find this very funny?