Why DONT you believe in "Global Warming"?

Question

I am very active in the environment, and have put much effort into preventing climate change. I have never heard any good reason that would change my belief system on the matter, but with a recent stat. at only 66% of the U.S. pop. that share my beliefs, I wanna know why others arent with me. Even when 66% of you believe in global warming, only 13% are doing anything about it!

Answer 1

As one who believes that global warming is real, I also realize it to be a scary concept.  Just like death, debt, or anything of the inevitable, people go into denial over the reality of it, even among the 66% you stated.  In other words, they find it too scary to confront that they don't want to think about it, or they are just too chicken to make adjustments to the way they go about life in order to be more environment friendly.  So then they seek out the information they need to keep themselves comfortable with, like the scientists that don't agree with global warming data and consider the topic only under their word.  Simply put, all people want is to just go on with their lives, they don't just fail to realize the truth, they refuse to accept it.

Just wait until it's too late and how everyone will start wanting to reverse a mistake that they can't fix.  It' just seems like nobody does anything until something bad happens, just like any school shooting or terrorist attack.

Answer 2

Best proof of global warming is the artic

Answer 3

The theory of man-made global warming is false.  Rather than just giving evidence proving that global warming is based on misrepresented evidence I will directly address the points made by global warming scientists.  If you do not plan on reading my post (I know it is long) I would ask you to watch this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...  this video makes many of the points I will be making.  Now I will list the points that global warming scientists make: 1. CO2 causes an increase in global temperature. 2.  The IPCC has produced a report on the issue.  3. Computer models predict what we are saying.  4. There is a scientific consensus on the issue/all major scientists agree on man-made global warming/the only people who disagree are paid by the oil companies.  5. Major Politicians, CEO’s, scientists, etc agree.  6.  Even if there is a chance that global warming is real we should do everything we can, it can’t hurt.

1.  This is the main point made by global warming scientists. Data does in fact show that temperature and CO2 are correlated, however the nature of the correlation has been overlooked.  Global warming scientists say that an increase of CO2 causes global temperatures to rise, but this is not the case; a rise in global temperatures causes a rise in CO2.  Using the same graph featured in “An Inconvenient Truth”, (the graph where Al Gore goes up on the cherry picker, the data from the ice core), the graph clearly shows a lag in CO2 as compared to global temperature.  Temperature starts to go up 800 years before CO2 begins to rise.  This happens because of the oceans.  CO2 released by natural or man-made sources is mostly absorbed into the ocean, when the global temperature raises it gradually increases the ocean temperature which releases CO2 and other gasses into the atmosphere.  Also most of the warming occurred before 1940 when industrialization was not as great.  One would believe that if global warming is tied to CO2 it would accelerate in the post WWII period, but it didn’t.  The globe actually cooled for 4 decades after WWII, when industrialization was the greatest.  Now take a look at our atmosphere as it relates to greenhouse gasses.  CO2 makes up .03% of our atmosphere, a very small amount of our atmosphere.  Other greenhouse gasses like water vapor make up 1-4% of the atmosphere.  Now take a look at where CO2 comes from, all human activity combined produces 6.5Gt of CO2 per year.  Volcanoes alone match that number.  All animals combined (meaning respiration, decomposition, etc) produce 150Gt of CO2.  So humans produce a very small amount of CO2 which itself makes up a very small amount of our atmosphere.  Water vapor is acknowledged to be the major greenhouse gas, and all of that is produced via evaporation (i.e. naturally).  

I know some of you may be thinking “ha, he acknowledges the greenhouse effect.”  To you I ask you to read a science textbook, the greenhouse effect is real and plays a very important role in maintaining a livable temperature on the earth.  Global warming scientists cite the greenhouse effect via our emission CO2 as the source of global warming.  They are disproved by their own words.  As I said before the greenhouse effect is real and causes heat to become trapped in the troposphere which warms the earth.  So if human emission of CO2 is to be blamed we would expect the troposphere to be warming and thus increasing the surface temperature (the temperature cited on global warming graphs) of the earth but look for yourself: http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/temperature... the troposphere is actually cooling, only the surface temperature is rising.  This warming is not due to the greenhouse effect it is due to the sun.

It makes sense, the sun is the ultimate source of all of our energy.  Studies have shown that the effect of sunspots much more closely correlates to the rise in temperatures. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sunsp... http://www.livescience.com/environment/0...

http://web.dmi.dk/solar-terrestrial/spac...

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/...

The other planets in our solar system are also warming. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/ma...

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?art...

All this data points to the sun as the source for our current warming, and what about those ice core studies?  http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/artic...

Here are the results of the ice core studies they show a very cyclic effect in regard to global temperatures.  The global warming crowd also argues that weather disturbances will become more likely but the actual numbers show no increase.  Oh and the glaciers, they have retreated and advanced every year since the earth began, they melt in the summer and build up in the winter.

2.  The IPCC, http://www.ipcc.ch/, is the main source of data for those in support of global warming, and has been very controversial.  In a prior report a graph, the so called “hockey stick” graph, was shown to be forged.  A reprint of the report had to be issued but the damage was done.  The fake graph was the main point made in the report, all data rested on its accuracy.  When an independent review took place the data used to make the graph was shown to be made up, that’s a fact even the IPCC admitted the fraud.  Now allegations have been made that the IPCC has censored the report and refused to take scientists names off the contributors list.  Contributing scientists have alleged that their passages, which were critical of man-made global warming, were taken out of the report.  15 passages in all are alleged to have been cut from the report.  Scientists have also said that their names are on the contributors list even though they left the committee after finding their objections to global warming were ignored.  These scientists left the committee but the IPCC refused to take their names off the contributors list so that they can claim all major scientists agree with them.  The IPCC is a heavily partisan committee that went into session fully knowing that their report would be in favor of global warming, any scientist who disagreed was censored.

3.  Computer models are predictions; they are based on hundreds of assumptions.  If even one assumption is wrong the whole model is incorrect.  Every computer model is based off the assumption that man is the main cause of global warming, which if you’ve read the above paragraphs, should be questioned.  Another disparity occurs in the amount of CO2 released, most models have two times the amount of CO2 being released than is actually seen.  You may wonder why these programmers are being so bold with their outrageous assumptions; the fact is these models predict the climate 50 to 100 years from now.  These programmers will be retired or dead before their models can be proven accurate or inaccurate.

4. This is the most blatant lie made by the global warming crowd; there is no scientific consensus on this issue.  Here are the names of over 17,000 scientists who disagree.  http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm  This lie of scientific consensus is purely propaganda meant to make you believe without evidence.  Consider for a second, what does scientific consensus mean?  This may sound silly but imagine that all the scientific community got together and decided that humans can fly unassisted, does this mean it’s true, no.  Science is not politics, issues are not voted on, and truth is not based on which outcome is most accepted, if it was we would be the center of the universe not to mention the earth would be flat.  Those were the scientific consensus of the time, but experimentation has proved them to be wrong.

5.  A recent poll has shown that only 8% of the population believes that global warming is not man-made.  Everyone else believes global warming is man-made and this will affect the world either in this generation or sometime soon.  This accounts for the support of politicians and CEO’s.  Politicians see their constituents believe global warming and the politician jumps on the global warming band-wagon to get votes.  CEO’s and presidents of corporations also see the poll data and try and get customers by pledging their support.  Price differences between stores are often not that great, so leaders of these corporations want to gain customers based on “morals.”  Scientists love the global warming hype; more and more funding is being poured into various institutions for scientists to use.  Scientists find applying for grants easier with this increase in money.  Scientists can get media face time and get studies published before moving on to their real interests.  You may wonder why so many ordinary people believe in global warming even though all the evidence disagrees.  The fact is global warming dissenters are ignored.  The media airs only stories in support of global warming; many people don’t even know that there is a legitimate opposition to global warming.  And the claim that the only people who disagree with global warming are paid by oil companies is unfounded, its mudslinging.  That claim is just as founded as the claim that all those in support of global warming are paid by the major environmental conservation companies.  

The global cooling scare can show where this is current scare will take us.  If you don’t remember this scare I’ll explain.  In 1974 scientists were convinced that the globe was cooling so fast that we would soon enter a new ice age.  The media portrayed it as fact, committees were put together and came out with the global cooling conclusion, a scientific consensus was called.  Ordinary people were scared that the world would end and what happened?  We now have global warming a 180 from the ice age we were supposed to enter.  Global warming is the exact same scare as global cooling.  You’d think that people would have acknowledged global climate cycles by now.  

6.  This claim has been made more popular recently; it’s called the preventative principle.  This may seem to be the end all global warming argument.  However this statement just conveys ignorance.  You, in your rich country in your house or apartment and on your computer, will not be affected by the precautionary principle.  These changes to alternate energy would apply worldwide, and it is a fact that these energy options are currently much more expensive than coal and oil.  Take Africa for example, a continent made up of mainly third world countries.  How do you expect the poorest people in the world to ignore their coal and gas resources in favor of very expensive alternate energies?  They can not afford it but the UN via the IPCC expects them to switch over.  Also the US alone spends over 4 billion dollars on global warming research, that money could be much better used to promote any number of charity programs.  

If you read my post or watched the video you should at least have been prompted to take a fresh look at global warming as an unproven theory.  It is no lie I do not believe in man-made global warming, my purpose in writing this is not to completely convince you global warming is false.  I wrote this to wake people up from blindly following the global warming crowd.  I urge you to look at global warming and take in consideration arguments made by scientists who oppose global warming.  Your time, vote, money, and liberties are being taken in the name of global warming.  

Start with these links:

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2Sci...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warm...

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA235.htm...

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/

Answer 4

The idea that a majority of scientists in the 70s thought the Earth was cooling is a myth.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=9...

The few scientists who were saying this actually more resemble the global warming skeptics; few in number, with theories but no convincing data.  Most all the major scientific organizations say clearly that global warming is a proven fact, none said that about "global cooling".

The "swindle" movie is wrong.

It is simply a political statement which distorts science.  The director has a history of putting out misleading stuff.  In 1997 he made a series for Channel 4 called “Against Nature”, which compared environmentalists with n***s. Channel 4 had to apologise for the misleading stuff in that one.  The present movie is also a distortion of the science. More here:

http://news.independent.co.uk/environmen...

"A Channel 4 documentary claimed that climate change was a conspiratorial lie. But an analysis of the evidence it used shows the film was riddled with distortions and errors."

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313p...

"Pure Propaganda"

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...

Explanations of why the science is wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durk...

History of the director.

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climat...

"The science might be bunkum, the research discredited. But all that counts for Channel 4 is generating controversy."  

Gore's movie may be a little over dramatic, but it has the basic science right.  This movie does not.

Channel 4 itself undercuts the movie in a funny way.  If you go to their website on the movie you find links to real global warming information.  They also have a way to "Ask the Expert" about global warming.  The questions go to a respected mainstream scientist who supports (mostly) human responsibility for global warming.

Answer 5

Because Santa told me not to.

Answer 6

I dont think its that people dont believe in it, and that its more of most people just dont care because they figure when its our time to go we are going to go either way. The entire world would have to do something to prevent it in order for it to actually help, and there is no way all those people out there have the time to even think about an issue like this let alone do something to help out.

Answer 7

I believe in Global Warming and Cooling - hence Ice ages, and Tropical Ages, Dino's etc -

Humans effecting that pattern no -

First Mars Polar Ice Caps melting -

Martian SUV's?

Martian Deforestation?

Martian Cow Flatulence?

Second - How did the Ice Age End? How did It start?

How about the greenhouse Gasses in the Dino age?

The Earth Warmed between 1919 and 1940 and then cooled down until 1976.

BTW  the sea levels  have been increasing since the start of the melting of the Ice Age.

This winter in 3 weeks NY got 11 Feet of snow and the first 3 weeks of April the Midwest was below or at freezing.

in 982 AD Greenland was farmable. When did it freeze?

Greenland has been loosing at the rate of 0.4% each 100 years. But that has reversed in late 2005. If the ice is growing back - how can that happen in the Warming?

How do we answer the little ice age between 13 century ad - 19 century ad?

What started the warming in the 1800's if the greenhouse gasses were much less then today.

Science is an exact thing -

Remember Science said the earth was flat

Remember Science said that the earth was the center of the universe

Remember that science in 1975 said that we would be in a deep freeze/ice age by 2000.

Could we have the cause and effect mixed up. Could the greenhouse gasses be the effect of some outside cause (the sun?)?

Answer 8

I think people need to think more carefully about asking these kinds of questions. People who deny global warming are just denying the evidence.

However, there is quite a lot of scope for argument over whether human activity is causing global warming, or if this is just a natural phase in the earth's life, since it was created it has gone through phases of tropical heat and freezing ice ages.

Answer 9

Because in the 80's they had the exact same scientific models and were trying to scare people saying the world was cooling...  There are many scientists that have brought objections to the table (real scientists not pseudoscientists), and have been completely Ignored. This is a big ticket item for the Liberals, and the scientists are getting LOTS of extra funding, they have a vested interest in seeing this continue. These are some dissenting opinions from scientists who don't get any media coverage in the mainstream:

Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."

Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London: "...the myth is starting to implode. ... Serious new research at The Max Planck Institute has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor..." (Global Warming as Myth [49])

Tim Patterson [41], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?" [42]

Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin: "The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, ... solar activity, ...; volcanism ...; and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence being unknown. These factors are working together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of their respective influences upon climatic evolution. Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor, which is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned."

So in conclusion, some of US - those that don't jump on the liberal activist bandwaggon with reckless abandon, would like all the glaring questions about global warming answered before we change laws in ways that would seriously damage the economy... when there might not be any reason to do so.

Answer 10

It's not that I don't believe in global warming, but I am somewhat skeptical on the extent of human influence on it.

Answer 11

Sure the globe may be warming, everyone can believe in that!!

The gobbleygook comes from people who believe that man is the principal cause of it. There were no humans present when the ice age ended, I'm sure that was one of the global warming cycles that the earth has been going through since it all began.

There are years that have cooler than normal climate, and years with warmer than normal climate. You my friend have been brain washed.

Answer 12

Interesting stats you have there about those that believe in global warming yet do nothing about it, kinda sad really.

I now believe in global warming but the reasons I used to doubt it until quite recently were:

1. For a while I thought maybe the urban heat effect played a part in the observed temperature rise.

2. I thought maybe we only heard about the glaciers that are retreating and scientists were ignoring those that were expanding.

3. I felt the media really hyped up global warming and started attaching it as a reason for every observable weather event.

4. I thought that maybe scientists get paid for frightening the public, because a scientist that encourages the public to act gets the funding.

5. I looked back hundreds of thousands of year and saw temperature swings compareable to what is happening now and though "If it happened before....couldn't it be natural?". This is true by the way, but it's faulty logic to say if it's happened before we aren't causing it. A lot of things happen naturally that we can reproduce, and considering there were "natural" events that caused mass extincitions in the past I am kind of concerned about the future and our effect on our environment.

Answer 13

I am of the opinion that global warming is a POORLY understood concept that starts out with a flawed premise (i.e. that there is actually a physically valid global temperature).

The following five points are quotes from some sources that are not blogs, newspapers, magazines, TV news, or any other ill-informed non-scientific source. Rather these are excerpts from papers and lectures given by a number of different scientists. All but number 6 are peer reviewed materials.

Read what they say and think about the arguments they make. These are no longer voices in the wilderness, but rather they are part of a growing body of science that brings the concept of global warming into question.

1. "Inspection of the global atmospheric temperature

changes during the last 1,000 years (Fig. 11) shows that

the global average temperature dropped about 2C over

the last millennium."

2. "Despite the increasing trend in atmospheric CO2 concentration, the patterns of 20-year and 60-year oscillation of global temperature are all in falling."

3. "Distinct and equally valid statistical rules can and do show opposite trends when applied to the results of computations from physical models and real data in the atmosphere. A given temperature field can be interpreted as both 'warming' and 'cooling' simultaneously, making the concept of warming in the context of the issue of global warming physically ill-posed."

4. "The Arctic was as warm as or warmer in the late 1930s than it was at the end of the 20th century. "

5. "The main cause of climate change during the last millennia is the corresponding cyclic variation of the 80- and 200-year component of irradiance correlated with activity. That is why, the contemporary is not anomalous but is ordinary secular global warming (Aguilar 2003; Reid 2000)."

There are four premises that underly AGW:

1. That 1990 levels of CO2 are the appropriate baseline.

Why was this year chsoen? Is there some sort of scientific basis for this? Or was it arbitrary?  Picking and choosing a data set that best fits your predetermined views is not science.

2. Global temperature is a meaningful statistic.

How can there be such a number, the atmosphere is an open system.  Each weather station is an open system unto itself.  Open systems cannot be averaged together in a thermodynamically meaningful way.  It could be argued that basing decisions on meaningless numbers is a fools errand.

3. Global temperature and CO2 levels are intimately linked.

It has been argued that they are linked, except that temperature leads CO2 increases, not the other way around.  It has been that way until now.  Now we see a reversal of that trend?  I don't think so.

4. CO2 drives global temperature.

There are two gases that have a stronger greenhouse effect, relatively speaking, than CO2. They are methane and water vapor(not from clouds, which are droplets). These should have a greater affect than CO2.  

Outside of any of the arguments regarding the causes of warming (solar variability, cosmic rays, tectonic heating, volcanic emissions, natural CO2 emissions, natrual and manmade CH4 emissions, Milankovitch cycles, etc) I question these four underlying premises of global warming itself.  

I am worried that any scientist or group of scientists would declare that the science is clear, no more work needs to be done. It is appalling that science could be bastardized in this way, but that is what happens in group-think situations. The close mindedness of scientists and some of the climate blogs (especially realclimate.org) is astounding. They have closed ranks like the pro-choice and pro-life camps have on abortion. Any deviation from the consensus is to be punished swiftly and harshly.

Group think has over taken some of the most prestigious journals in the world, as expressed in this recent paper presented at a climate change conference in Brussles:

http://www.achgut.com/dadgdx/index.php/d...

That is some of it, I could go on, but that would take up even more time and space.