Why are man-made global warming 'skeptics' so vehement in their beliefs?

Question

Most people who label themselves as global warming 'skeptics' are completely unshakable in their beliefs. They won't accept clearcut data showing that solar irradiance has not increased over the past 30 years, that the planet has not stopped warming, they engage in ad hominem attacks on highly respected scientists, etc. etc.

I've been having trouble understanding the source of this strong belief that global warming *must* be a hoax. I mean, we all know that reducing our dependence on oil is a good idea for many reasons - it's a limited resource mostly concentrated in unstable political regions which has other harmful byproducts besides CO2.

So it seems like moving away from fossil fuels shouldn't be the source of their convictions. And it's obviously not a scientific reason, because while you can argue the data doesn't prove AGW, there's certainly not enough evidence undermining the theory to justify their vehemence.

Could it be something as simple as politics? Fear?

Answer 1

We, are all waiting for you to tell us when and where this is going to occur. How long do we have,  before we start our subterranean existence? Or can we all move into your cave?  At least give the world something we can grasp to.

Answer 2

People deny it for 1 of 2 reasons:

1) either they make money on denying it, or

2) to believe it means one would have to believe God isn't controlling the climate, and a change in belief is necessary.

If you remember, during the dark ages the church used to ban anything and everything that threatened their power. Many times people didn't understand why something was made unlawful, they just knew the church said it was evil, so it must be.

not much has changed, in the mind of the acolyte.

that isn't skepticism it is either capitalism or idealism.

Answer 3

There are two levels to skeptic, those who have a vested interest in the status quo, and followers.

I am of the opinion that by the time that global warming is "proven" to be partially or mostly man-made, it would be too late in the game to substantially change course.  As to the reason for global warming, I don't think we can know for certain.  The question is, with fairly simple changes, do we want to wait and find out rather it was more natural or more man-made?  

Skeptics, using farmers logic, like to point toward global cooling (1970's), ozone layer, Y2K, acid rain, etc. to convince themselves that they can keep on keeping on.  

Fuzzy memories or listening to biased reports neglect to identify that global cooling was never scientifically accepted in the 1970's.  One theory with little support somehow equals far superior climactic understanding, supercomputer power, and very broad scientific consensus. Instead this should be filed as yet another example of media hype.

They neglect to acknowledge how a simple yet dramatic, world-wide change in refrigerant chemicals altered the course of ozone depletion.  The failure of their high school chemistry programs doesn't allow them to understand how ozone depletion is a steady-state reaction where 1 CFC breaks down ~100,000 ozone molecules before becoming "innocuous."  The sun creates new ozone everyday, and slowing its destruction rate improves ozone thickness.  Perhaps they'll be less of a skeptic as the number of cataracts increases for the younger generation.

These people are jaded by their efforts to stockpile food and cash in preparation for Y2K.  Afterwards they bitterly dismiss it as yet more media hype without realizing the massive reprogramming effort that occurred to keep everything humming along for them.

These are the same people who aren't aware of all the dead lakes and rivers around the world... lakes that can't support life because they are too acidic for complex life.  They listen to arguements from bitter industry that was forced to put scrubbers on their stacks to remove sulfur dioxide from emissions, catalytic converters to mitigate NOx forms of acid, or improve the quality of water running of their facilities and into streams and rivers... complaining how this hurts business because it increases the cost of a product slightly.

The skeptic voices have a vested interest in the status quo.  The followers just go along the fuzzy thinking because they like their current lifestyle and they want things cheap now, without reflecting the true cost of manufacturing, consumption, and waste.

Answer 4

could it be that, there is NOT clear cut evidence to support it? you can spew all the scientific mumbo jumbo you want, but it is still not clear cut. a consensus of scientist is not irrefutable proof. the worst argument from scientific stand point would be that it is a consensus, because a real scientist does not search for a consensus, but to prove the theory is fact.  i would be embarrassed as a scientist to subscribe to the consensus theory.

Answer 5

The best answer to this question is one posted by fellow Yahoo! answerer, gcnp58, in a previous question: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

[quote] I think the thing to understand is that for the skeptics, it's not about the science. It's about something else. The quote from the Heartland guy at the opening of the publicity event is quite telling:

"Once lost, freedoms are often very difficult to retrieve."

That is an emotional appeal and has nothing to do with science. Look at the title of Stossel's closing talk: "Freedom and its Enemies." Skeptics are by and large scared of anthropogenic climate change being true, rather than objecting to it out of any sort of deep understanding of the science. For them, it *has* to be false, because if man is affecting climate, someone is going to take something away from them.

These are the same men, by and large, who objected to things like African-Americans getting the vote, the emancipation of women, g*y rights etc. because they see life as a zero sum game. Any gain in freedom by another group is somehow see as an assault on their "freedom." They also are scared of people who have the right to tell them "no," whether it is a woman in the bedroom or the black kid taking up "their" seat on the bus. Similarly, they see a call for a need for collective action to address climate change as the government "taking away" their freedom. As if freedom is equal to driving a huge truck and owning a huge screen television.

So it is not surprising to me they cling to the same stale scientific canards. They simply don't have the courage to "man up" and face the truth. Any little bit is enough to keep them thinking they are still the "real men of courage" and all of the people who timidly suggest that "gee, maybe consuming less wouldn't be so bad" are the pansies. Who knows, maybe these studly guys will inherit the Earth. The planet seems to have a sense of cosmic irony, if they get what they want they're probably going to deserve it.[end quote]

Answer 6

Actually, it's the other way around.

Answer 7

There are people in this world  who likes to argue for arguments' sake. I believe they are trying to give the impression that they are "smarter than thou."

Answer 8

Maybe it's because your evidence is flimsy and I don't like being told the sky is falling and that I need to buy "carbon credits" to fix it. I have no trouble believing that I can have an effect upon the world.  But you "Kool-aid drinkers" have bored me with the endless claims of 30 ft sea level rises and end of the world scenarios that only exist at the very extremes of the climate models.  If you'd stop trying to scare me, maybe I'd listen.

Your arguments all started with a "Hockey stick" graph that was completely wrong and showed a stable climate for thousands of years, then a dramatic increase in temp, when we became industrialized. Then I see another graph showing CO2 levels "following" temp increases.  Then I see another one that matches perfectly with the solar cycles.  Who's graph do I believe?  Fact is, none of us can answer that.  We don't know enough.  Period.  More research must be done.

I was surprised to find out in the previous posts that I'm a greedy, racist, women-hating, religious nut.  Interesting.  Or could it be that me and my fellow "skeptics" are intelligent people who are looking for the truth.  Now I'm not trying to say the you "Kool-aid drinkers" are a bunch of ignorant, chicken Little's who are easily swayed by a slick politician with a huge bank account.  

I don't want to see the world end any more than you people do, but I'm not gonna change my entire way of life, buy "carbon credits" or pay extra taxes for something that hasn't been conclusively proven.  The greenhouse effect is a proven natural mechanism, but our effect hasn't been proven to a satisfactory level.  The belief in a consensious is fictional, scientist don't vote and prove theories.  The only proof of a consensious is that Al Gore said so.  I have seen several signed documents from scientist who disagree with the belief.

Maybe if you people would stop trying to shove this down my throat and show me why my doubts are wrong, then I'd listen to you.  Show me the proof that the enviroment is changing because of our actions.  Explain the corrilation between solar cycles and temps.  Just because you haven't convinced me, doesn't make me wrong.

BTW, your initial question is flawed, the sun goes through a very predictable and dramatic cycles.  The link is below.  Maybe if you had your facts straight, I'd listen to you.  Till then, I'll remain a skeptic.

Answer 9

Nah!  No politics, no science, no beliefs, no convictions.  Just low grade hecklers.  Politics and climate change are just plausible excuses for being here.  If they weren't here bothering us they'd be somewhere else bothering someone else.  Watching the "top" specimens say "it's not warming it's cooling", on one post, then "it's warming because of the sun"on the next,  then "it's warming because of natural CO2" on the next,  then "it's all a hoax", then on the next,  "Al Gore made it up to get rich" then "it's a conspiracy among the scientists", then "the liberals just want you to think that so they can control you and melt your brain" and on and on, I'm unable to detect any trace of a belief system.  Certainly not a scientific one, or even a political, moral or ethical one.  Just haters with nothing useful to do.  

I do agree with whoever said it, gcnp58 gives a great answer.

Answer 10

Fear-It's natural to throw more of a fit if you feel you're in the minority.

Answer 11

What makes them different from you, your just as unshakable in yours.

Answer 12

What seems to happen with this is that the relatively few number of people at the extremes of the opinion spectrum on global warming make their views heard very loudly, so all we seem to hear are the alarmists who attribute all 20th cent warming to man and predict devastating consequences in the future affecting all areas of our lives, and there are the deniers who either deny warming is happening or claim all warming is from the sun.

The fact is, most people, sceptical or not, lie within these extremes, but with their views much more modest, we tend not to hear them. In fact the majority of sceptics, including myself are far more realistic and do take on all evidence, maybe saying that the greenhouse effect is exaggerrated but still very effective.

There is also a tendency on the part of the sceptics to make exaggerated statements about the role of the Sun etc. to get their voices heard, because the media ain't interested in the postulation that "30% of the warming can be attributed to blah blah blah"

Sceptics generally aren't vehement in their beliefs, it just seems that way.

Answer 13

TO EACH OF HER OR HIS OWN. WHAT OTHERS THINK SHOULD'NT IS GETTING TO YOU. http://www.inventube.com/ooojay/blog/  HAVE A NICE DAY

Answer 14

Has anyone every told you to open your eyes.

Come on, Humans are  messing up the Air with the Chemicals they are producing.  Let me break it down for U.

    Factories, Chemicals, Bombs, Household chemicals, perfume, Gasoline and anything else that is man made

Answer 15

I 'm skeptical because it seems like every five to ten years there's always some scare cooked up by a few people and suddenly we're all going to die if we don't spend a lot of money on stuff.  

In the 1970's it was global cooling and people were say that if we don't stop burning fossil fuels, we're going to have another or mini-ice age.  They used the same language then as they are now.  

An Inconvenient Truth is based on faulty data.  Some computer models even fail to show accurate weather from a pervious date, let alone what will happen a week later.  

Al Gore is also pushing this thing about carbon credits, which sounds like such a load of Bovine Scatology!  Plus the fact that he lives in a huge house.  I find that suspect since he stands to get a lot of money from green credit type subsidies.



There's been global cooling, then someone decided there's global warming in the early 1980's but no one said much about it.  

Next, somewhere in there the ozone layer was being depleted and they decided that arisol sprays and the refrigerant in air conditioners was the cause so everyone had to spend money on retro-fitting equipment to use a new "less harmful" refrigerant.  Then it came about that CFC's or Chloroflourocarbons were NOT causing anything.  

Next came the Y2K scare, and acid rain.  Nothing!  What happened to acid rain, did we solve that problem?  Then there was the Multi-colored "Terror Alerts" which were so vague they were pointless.  "The terror alert is red today so be careful.  But go about your business because if you don't the terrorists have won."  

What I also hear are, and these are extreme points of view that make the idea of global warming so shrill.  

"Children cause global warming."

Just read a piece in the news that a beetle in Canada is eating out many of the trees.  Now they are being blamed for helping to cause global warming.  Since when does an act of nature cause an issue like this?  So do we kill all the beetles causing this, and any other parasitic insect, animal and plant?  

Driving to work, heating your house, running your air conditioner, working out of all things!  

So the question is, what's the scare going to be when Global Warming is no longer fashionable?

Answer 16

People's beliefs are their faith.  Beliefs are something they hold that cannot be proved.  Some people believe that life exist elsewhere.  Others believe man can change the climate.

Unless something can be objectively proven, everyone should have a right to what they believe and no one should force others to accept other beliefs.

Beliefs are not science.  Beliefs are for the mystics.

Answer 17

i wouldn't say that they're easily lead astray, but ......

Answer 18

I don't think there is a single simple answer, many reasons fall into the mix. On the political side, some people hate anything that smacks of 'liberalism,' which they may want to blame for all of our social ills, other people see the whole issue of global warming as an attack on our country-or their political party of choice and way of life, imagining a vast, world-wide conspiracy.  I don't think fear is as big an issue as some of us might suppose; concern would probably be more accurate, based on worry that we will be forced to change our lifestyles and/or the U.S. will lose it's position of global dominance as a result.

There is a common theme in most of the arguments though, and that is a desire to distill the concept of global warming into something less complex than it is, and a lack of general understanding of the dynamic.  'They can't even predict the weather next week, how can they predict it 100 years from now?'  'Cow farts produce more global warming than mankind!'  'It was a long cold and snowy winter here in Podunk Center, that proves that global warming is a SHAM!'  These sorts of arguments and logic, along with the belief that there is a worldwide conspiracy of unimaginable scale going on, lead me to believe that many people just can't grasp the fundamental principles in play and go AHA!  SEE! when confronted with the research and somebody like Rush Limbaugh pronounces consensus less than scientific fact as if he is pointing out something profound rather than displaying his ignorance in his attempt to score yet another feeble political point.

I think it is akin to blaming Jimmy Carter for inflation and superheated interest rates during his term as president, as if that period in time existed in a vacuum and the price controls of the Nixon Administration, the oil crisis, and the Viet Nam War had no consequences down the road.  I'm not saying Carter was a great president by any means, I'm just comparing; you can point out that price controls result in costs going up later once they are removed until you are blue in the face, but some people remain totally oblivious because they can't understand simple cause and effect.  They don't grasp statistical analysis and probabilities.  They're clueless when it comes to science.

Finally, I think some people are just burned out on bad news-everything is running together like a watercolor painting in the rain  It's like so what is the crisis du jour?  And they believe it is all propaganda intended to drive a hidden agenda...sell newspapers, get viewers to tune in, the list goes on and on.

Answer 19

Your question should be worded the other way around.  Its the man made global warming wingnuts that are vehement in their belief with no proof. You guys claim that CO2 elevates temperatures, in fact you guys say it is undisputable...ok then show me scientific studies that show a given concentration of CO2 raises temperature a certain number of degrees. For example show me where it has been proven that say....for every 100 ppm of CO2 the temperature will elevate 10 degrees.  Not going to happen.  If it is so undeniable shouldn't there be scientific documentation showing this?  But you guys continue to believe whatever the nut cases feed you with no proof.

And I have one question for you to ask yourselves....What exactly heats the Earth?  Things that make you go hmmmm..

Answer 20

The "belief" is obviously on the alarmist side.  The word skeptic doesn't connote belief.  It indicates a skepticism of other's belief system.  Since politics drives the so called science on the alarmist side, it shouldn't be a big surprise that skepticism is rampant.  The majority of scientists believe that global warming is at most a minor problem.  That is the dirty little secret.