Why are otherwise inteligent people alowing themselves to be brainwashed to believe global warming is real?

Question

Can't they see that it is all political, just a way for rich politicians & environmental extremists to control us regular people? These people are always changing their story trying to scare people into beliveing tha so called "global warming" is real. Several years ago we had a few unusualy warm winters and they said it was because of global warming "we just don't see winters like we used to" they said. I just heard on the radio today that " the current cold spell across the country is most likely caused by global warming" I say bull. They also said that all the bad hurricanes like katrina were caused by global warming . Now after a couple of years of not having very many hurricanes, they are saying that global warming has altered upper wind patterns, preventing hurricanes from forming (wouldn't that be good?) Any way my point is that these environmental extremist keep changing their stories. And most of them, like Al Gore, use more energy than most "ordinary" people!!

Answer 1

http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/

Answer 2

It's because they need a new leg to stand on once the skeptics and time (their biggest enemy) disprove their theories.

Answer 3

Gee I don't know.  Maybe because we've examined the scientific data and aren't the ones being brainwashed.

There are many basic scientific facts which can only be explained if the current global warming is being caused by an increased greenhouse effect due to carbon dioxide accumulating in the atmosphere from humans burning fossil fuels.

For example, the planet is warming as much or more during the night than day.  If the warming were due to the Sun, the planet should warm a lot more during the day when the Sun has influence.  Greenhouse gases trap heat all the time, so they warm the planet regardless of time of day.  Another example is that the upper atmosphere is cooling because the greenhouse gases trap the heat in the lower atmosphere.  If warming were due to the Sun, it would be warming all layers of the atmosphere.

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

We know it's warming, and we've measured how much:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science...

Scientists have a good idea how the Sun and the Earth's natural cycles and volcanoes and all those natural effects change the global climate, so they've gone back and checked to see if they could be responsible for the current global warming.  What they found is:

Over the past 30 years, all solar effects on the global climate have been in the direction of (slight) cooling, not warming.  This is during a very rapid period of global warming.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/62902...

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/pro...

A recent study concluded:

“the range of  [Northern Hemisphere]-temperature reconstructions and natural forcing histories…constrain the natural contribution to 20th century warming to be <0.2°C [less than one-third of the total warming].  Anthropogenic forcing must account for the difference between a small natural temperature signal and the observed warming in the late 20th century.”

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104...

You can see this in the third graph here, where the dotted lines are just from natural causes, and the full lines are natural + human causes:

http://www.pnas.org/content/vol104/issue...

If that’s not enough to convince you the Sun isn’t responsible, consider the fact that no scientific study has ever attributed more than one-third of the warming over the past 30 years to the Sun, and most attribute just 0-10% to the Sun.

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

So the Sun certainly isn't a large factor in the current warming.  They've also looked at natural cycles, and found that we should be in the middle of a cooling period right now.

"An often-cited 1980 study by Imbrie and Imbrie determined that 'Ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend which began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years.'"

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

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ab...

So it's definitely not the Earth's natural cycles.  They looked at volcanoes, and found that

a) volcanoes cause more global cooling than warming, because the particles they emit block sunlight

b) humans emit over 150 times more CO2 than volcanoes annually

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man....

So it's certainly not due to volcanoes.  Then they looked at human greenhouse gas emissions.  We know how much atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased over the past 50 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mauna...

And we know from isotope ratios that this increase is due entirely to human emissions from burning fossil fuels.  We know how much of a greenhouse effect these gases like carbon dioxide have, and the increase we've seen is enough to have caused almost all of the warming we've seen over the past 30 years (about 80-90%).  You can see a model of the various factors over the past century here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Clima...

This is enough evidence to convince almost all climate scientists that humans are the primary cause of the current global warming.

Answer 4

You mean besides 100+ years of measurements, rising sea levels, the easily traceable isotopes of carbon that enable us to track our percentage of carbon in the air, the Stefan-Boltzmann Law which predicts the effects, observed Arctic Ice Sheet loss and accelerated melting, gravity measurements that show ice mass loss in Greenland and Antarctica, accelerating melt rate in Greenland, receding glaciers worldwide (with acceleration), and the Permian-Triassic Extinction which demonstrates the outcome (extinction of most land and ocean species)?  

Perhaps we've simply missed the brainwashing provided by Fox News:

http://www.freepress.net/news/print.php?...

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

http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/11...

http://www.nowpublic.com/whos_paid_to_de...

or we've failed to adopt the misguided political strategy of the Republican Party:

Denial is also viewed by some as an important public facade to maintain:

"A recently leaked memo written by Frank Luntz, the US Republican and corporate strategist, warned that 'The environment is probably the single issue on which Republicans in general - and President Bush in particular - are most vulnerable... Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need... to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue.'"

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/columnist...

or we've missed the paid propaganda fake science (created for Fox News and others) by ExxonMobil:

Exxposing ExxonMobil's Agenda: Manipulating Politics and the Public

http://www.exxposeexxon.com/facts/dailyf...

Maybe we've noticed that even the most skeptical scientists won't put their money where their mouth is:

http://www.livescience.com/environment/0...

In 2005, Annan offered to take Lindzen, the MIT meteorologist, up on his bet that global temperatures in 20 years will be cooler than they are now. However, no wager was ever settled on because Lindzen wanted odds of 50-to-1 in his favor. This meant that for a $10,000 bet, Annan would have to pay Lindzen the entire sum if temperatures dropped, but receive only $200 if they rose.

“Richard Lindzen’s words say that there is about a 50 percent chance of [global] cooling,” Annan wrote about the bet. “His wallet thinks it is a 2 percent shot. Which do you believe?”

Maybe we've noticed that the Bush Administration isn't really skeptical about human contributions to carbon global warming at all:

First State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR) December 2007:

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sa...

Gee, how could we be so stupid as to ignore the oil industry, ignore political agendas, think for ourselves, look into the peer-reviewed science, and actually believe it?  

Every day here skeptics are asked to provide data, science, to explain the evidence and trends, and every day we get rants without links to any of that.  Hmm... which side is best labelled "otherwise intelligent"?  

Excuse me, "inteligent"...

Answer 5

I think they like ideas, just like you and me.

Answer 6

thank you

Answer 7

Maybe they have examined the scientific data?  

You clearly don't know the first thing about science, so you're just making yourself look stupid.

Answer 8

I don't believe global warming is as bad as they want us to believe, but I also think it will get much worse in the next 20 years. Here's a scenario. Stand in the middle of a forest on the hottest day of the summer. Hot, but not too bad. Now bulldoze that forest and lay down a big parking lot and a cement building. Now that same patch of land is much hotter in the summertime because the layer of insulation that trees provide is gone, much like a desert. I don't think we can keep bulldozing trees at the alarming rate that we are without negative effects. I believe very little of what the government tells me, but I am aware of cause and effect. Whatever happened to that hole in the ozone anyway? Noone talks about that anymore.

Answer 9

There is no doubt it is true all they have to do is see how fast the ice is melting in the polar regions and the evidence is clear. I can also remember the winters in the 50's,60's; and

the 70's and the winters of today don't compare.

Answer 10

In a word, laziness. It’s easier to be spoon-fed a bunch of baloney – even if it’s distasteful - than to do the hard work of researching the subject by comparing the information from both sides and drawing a sensible conclusion. Besides, you’ve got these politicized scientists and eco-fascists claiming “the science is settled” and “the debate is over” and there are some people who actually believe that! Anyone who knows one iota about science knows that in real science the debate is NEVER over. And for the debate on a subject as complex as climate to be claimed “settled” after only about 20 years of serious research is ludicrous – we’re talking eons of climate to assess, not just since the mid 1900’s.  

Admittedly climate science is complicated – even to climate scientists – so most people feel unqualified to make any kind of a judgment call since it is out of their realm of expertise. But for my money, any person with a modicum of analytical skills and the ability to reason can see several things quite quickly: 1) that the scientific evidence in favor of AGW is extremely weak, 2) even if there is a human contribution, it borders on insignificant, and 3) the debate is too highly charged with emotionalism, alarmism, special interests, political agendas, and money-making schemes to be taken seriously. This is what is fueling the ever-increasing skepticism of AGW – which is good because it means more people are engaging the issue and thinking for themselves. Let’s hope true intelligence is making a comeback!

Answer 11

You live in a closed minded world man.  Do your research on climate change around the world and thing have changed, and not only in the USA.

Answer 12

The problem is that GW is NOT political.  It's NOT a matter of liberal vs. conservative.  It has NOTHING to do with the fact that Al Gore uses more energy than I do.

The real problem is that GW is a theory based on scientific evidence.  But, it's being ignored by the people who want to brush it aside crying "liberals" or whoever other irrelevant people they chose to blame.

Answer 13

These guys aren't likely to be brainwashed.  They say it's real and mostly caused by us:

The National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Chemical Society, the American Meteorological Association, etc.  EVERY major scientific organization.

And these guys are hardly "environmental extremists".

"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"

"Pat Robertson (very conservative Christian leader) 'It is getting hotter and the ice caps are melting and there is a build up of carbon dioxide in the air.  We really need to do something on fossil fuels.”

"I believe there is now more than enough evidence of climate change to warrant an immediate and comprehensive - but considered - response. Anyone who disagrees is, in my view, still in denial."

Ford Motor Company CEO William Clay Ford, Jr.

"The science of global warming is clear. We know enough to act now. We must act now."

James Rogers, CEO of Charlotte-based Duke Energy.

Answer 14

because global warming is real!

Answer 15

There are a couple of reasons why a lot of reasonably intelligent people buy into the 'Man-Did-It' Global Warming fad.  First, if you are a research scientist or a company providing research services, you aren't going to get a lot of donors/financial backers excited about throwing money your way if everything is 'as it should be'.  Those people make their money by keeping people scared.  Remember the 'Ice-Age' (caused by Man of course) that some of these same 'Man-Did-It' scientists swore was going to slam man-kind in the 1970's???  It didn't happen.....and no apologies from the 'It's gonna get cold' experts.  Anyway, now Warming is the rage for getting a grant and with pitchmen like Al Gore, who is selling Man-Did-It Global Warming to the uninformed masses....it's understandable that a lot of folks would buy into the craze.

These folks can't even agree on the science behind their claims.....a recent study released this month now claims that global warming is going to DECREASE the number and intensity of hurricanes.....which flies in the face of the conventional claim of just the opposite (and as presented in Al Gore's power-point presentation....'Inconvenient Truth'.

The temperature data-sets are flawed, as the vast majority of our ground-based measuring stations have recently been found to be substandard in their placement and reporting.  The result being that for years the stations have been reporting temperatures higher than actual.

Of course, Goregonauts have conveniently failed to mention any of this...... it could cost them $$$ if they did.

Hey....clean air is a good thing....I'm all for that.  I am NOT for a group of charletons insulting my intelligence with this man-did-it nonsense.  The Earth's climate has never been static.....it is in a cycle of cooling or warming....despite what man attempts.

My advice to all is NOT to fall for the media blitzing that is going on for the global warmists and remember....If one repeats a lie enough times, eventually people will believe it to be truth.  Don't be one of those believers.

Answer 16

Because it is not brainwashing. It is real. You need to read the facts and get your head out of the sand.

Answer 17

Believers like to fit in with others.  They enjoy associating with "scientist" they think are smart.  It makes them feel smart and superior by association.

The Emperor has no clothes, and they are too embarrassed to be thought of as fools.

Answer 18

I'm sorry, but you're extremely stupid.

Answer 19

you're absolutely right Joe,  I couldnt agree more..   funny how all the experts in the subject have changed the catch phrase from Global Warming to Global Climate Change,  because the earth is warming and cooling all the time..    

Top Contributer Bob says its happening because of all of us,   but the fact is climate change has been happening since the caveman days..   we had our first ice age when there wasnt even any people on the planet..  

the enviromentmental people have been saying the earth is in crisis since I was a little kid..  I am 42 now..   back in the 80's  actor Ted Danson was the person saying we only have 7 years before the  world is doomed..  I notice the world is still here..   now its Leo and Al Gore..     they are so desperate that they send out phoney pics of Polar Bears on melting ice bergs...  

its ridiculous,,  the earth was here before the us and will be here long after us..     I am no way condoning littering or any kind of waste.   but the world is not in crisis..      this just makes the liberals feel better..  

I am not driving a hybrid to make Leo DiCaprio happy ..