Why are there so many nay-sayers about global warming? i just don't understand.?

Question

the same people who are all about fact-based, "i research" type of people are the ones claiming there's no such thing when there is and has been for decades very strong scientific evidence, let alone you see it with your own eyes during the past decade with record breaking heat and extreme weather. I just don't understand where these people are coming from. i actually have a friend who is like that too... how can you say you research this and that and you work with facts be the same people who believe the bible is all fact? where exactly do you research from? WIKIPEDIA (we learn not to use wikipedia in college english for research and use scholarly sources from people who've actually accomplished something)? all in all, my point is where are all the nay-sayers coming from? i just don't understand... do they just see us as a "country of whiners" as McCain's adviser puts it?

Answer 1

I don't live in the USA, and where I live during the past decade there's surely been no record-breaking extreme weather.  Unless you're talking about cold weather, and I gather you're not.  The past winter was the coldest ever in the northern hemisphere.

I have lots of respect for all my American neighbours and don't see them as a "country of whiners" at all.  I love the US.  What irks me is that one of your politicians chose to start what I think is a scam which is throwing the world into turmoil.  There are evil politicians everywhere, sure.  But I think the onus is on Mr. Gore to prove what he's saying.  You don't make threats or cause this kind of c**p without proof.  So far there's been none, he won't debate, and just wants everyone to follow him.  Some people have, but I'm not one of them.

When the best he could do was to come out with a movie filled with mistakes or deliberate lies, I have even less faith in his mission.  So until I see some climate changing somewhere, or proof that it will, I will stay a skeptic.

Answer 2

maybe they come from here-its the only place i heard something contrary to global warming-

go to you tube and look up esoteric agenda-but i'm sure their are tons more

omg a "fact" thats being refuted with other facts

isnt it odd when you realize everyone actually dosen't think just like you!

Answer 3

Ok guys hold on. Now I am a nay-sayer to global warming. All I ask is that you keep an open mind when you read what I have to say.

The earth is warming, that cannot be disputed but what can be disputed is why it is warming. I do not believe that CO2 is the primary cause of this warming.

Al gore points out that CO2 trends match up with temperature increases over the long history of the earth. And he is right in that séance, however if one is to closely examine those actual publications in scientific journals one will see that temperature rises and AFTER that CO2 rises. In addition al gores CO2 model is all about general trends and ignores the slight changes that occur over short periods of time (the little ice age for example).

I have a read a publication in a scientific journal which suggested that solar output is causing the climate change. The scientists took hundreds of years of data concerning the number of sunspots and compared those numbers to the temperature change data. They matched closer than the CO2 graphs AND matched all of the slight climate changes. When sun activity dropped the little ice age occurred. When sun activity increased the earth got warmer.

The IPCC (intergovernmental panel on Climate change) a segment of the UN. Publishes reports on global warming with 2,000 of the worlds "top scientists" however when interviewed several of the scientists say that the evidence does not support the conclusion of human caused climate change. Their protested and quit the IPCC but their names were left on the publication for the sake of the IPCCs reputation.

Human caused global warming has become a multi-billion dollar industry. With thousands of employees, people will work hard to keep their jobs. Especially those who work in the government. What would happen to all of the people who work at the IPCC they don’t want their names tarnished, so they push conclusions that are not sound.

I would like to add that I am not anti-environment; in fact I am an active environmentalist. We are running out food, we are running out oil, we are running out of water, and we are running out of space. Something needs to be done. We produce an obscene amount of trash every year and when we burn it we create the most toxic chemicals known to man, Dioxins. Our commercial products are filled with toxic chemicals; our fisheries are polluted mercury and pesticides.

You don’t need to fall victim to the global warming scam to be concerned about the environment

Answer 4

Intelligent people do not really need to see the signs that man is destroying his planet.   It was obviously all the time that we could not go on tearing down the forests, raping the earth for coal and oil, covering the earth with concrete and spewing out noxious unnatural fumes.

At the risk of attracting the critics, I myself believe the human race is on a hiding to nowhere, and the planet will crack at the end.  Why do I say this.

Because show me a man who will give up any of his `wants` and I might start to believe it.

Answer 5

The evidence is not conclusive.  The models are flawed.  There are other interpretations.  Ten years is too short a period on which to draw conclusions.  There are too many grants and books and money making schemes and career opportunities that depend on promulgating the 'global warming' theory for the specialists to be seen as objective.

As it happens, I think there is convincing evidence that global warming is happening.  There is less evidence to support the assertions that the current phenomenon is unique or that it is man made.  I don't say it it is NOT made made or man-influenced, just that the evidence needs to be more conclusive.

Does that make me a nay-sayer or a 'let's find out-er' like so many other people.

Answer 6

How do you know this isn't just a natural cycle?  This is just your opinion.

We know so little about the climate.  We don't know how the climate behaves, and everything that effects it.

The colder winter last year and the cooler summer this year are tracking sunspots.  Russian scientist and the Dutch Space Agency conclude that activities of the sun has the greatest effect on our climate.  Why do you just dismiss these scientist?  Are you smarter than they are?

You believe because you follow what others do.  This gives you comfort and safety, and making fun of others is the way you feel better about yourself.

Clearly global warming is a social tool for you, not a scientific issue.

Answer 7

Because there is, at the very least, a fair bit of controversy as to whether any climate change is happening at all. Yes, it has been hotter (or colder or wetter or dryer) in some places. But we have less than 200 years of accurate data to work from. Even so, you still here "It hasn't been this hot/cold/wet/dry since 190x"…that means it WAS this hot/cold/wet/dry in 190x. Not like we're setting record temps every day. So then you might say "Well, there MIGHT be global warming, so we should do SOMETHING!" Not necessarily. There is a lot of evidence that the sun's cycles are now (and always have been) effecting the climate. Go figure…a giant ball of burning hydrogen 1000x bigger than earth has more effect than our cars. Also, your solutions are often very costly to private industry and/or to taxpayers. Not to mention personal freedom. It's not far-fetched to see a day when the number of cars per household is limited, or the number of miles driven. The equipment to reduce CO2 emissions from factories will drive up the price of many products. What about carbon footprint taxes? It already being considered in Europe. If you want to pay huge wads of cash for negligible results, you go right ahead. Just keep your taxes off my footprint.

Answer 8

I trust one of the most cited climatologists in the world, Reid A. Bryson (RIP). He says that 80% of outward radiation (reflected energy) is absorbed by water, and only 0.08% by CO2. I love his statement:

"You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide."

The overly complicated climate models ignore too much to be valid.

The Earth will spin and its temperature will vary long after you and I are gone.

EDIT - temperatures started rising at the end of the Little Ice Age, not the start of the Industrial Revolution.  Some people will say and do anything to slander capitalism.

EDIT2 - Bob do you dispute Bryson? Do you have other numbers?  If you are a "scientist" you certainly aren't a very good one, relying on non-scientific appeals to consensus and authority.  I am starting to suspect you are as much a fraud as Hansen, no small task.  Public opinion has nothing to do with physical reality.

Answer 9

If the WIKIPEDIA was around in 1620, it would have said the world was flat.

Answer 10

alm pretty much stole my thunder.  You cannot blame man for everything.  The Little Ice Age ended about 1700.  Since then the earth warmed about 0.5 degrees in the 1700s, 0.5 degrees in the 1800s, 0.5 degrees in the 1900s, and it may continue into the 2000s.  It doesn't mean we are all going to die or that we are destroying the planet.  Don't fall for it.  The truth of the matter may be a little more boring or not fit your view of the world and man's influence, but climates change.  Currently, we are fortunate to live in a very hospitable time.

Answer 11

because every time you study global warming the people in favor of it ignore inconvenient facts...

like the fact that the romans grew grapes and exported wine from england.. it is far to cold to do so now..

like the fact that two years ago the shrinking Greenland glaciers revealed a village they didn't know about.. if the earth hasn't been this warm before... and it is all man made.. how did Greenland make a village there??

add in the things they don't know...

how does cosmic rays effect global warming... not sure so we disregarded it

how does the shifting of the north pole due to the tsunami effect global warming..  <the true north pole moved like 30 feet> don't' know disregarded it.

how does the fact that the earth is rounder now then we have ever known it to be effect global warming  < we haven't had to add leap minutes on a regular basis in the last few decades> hmm we don't know disregarded it.

what are the balances in nature for warming?? after all you admit the globe HAS been this warm before.. and it cooled down.. so how and what triggers the cooling..            don't know disregarded it.

i could go on and on.. but the bottom line is every time you study the opposition the usual answer is don't' know so we disregarded it... bottom line is the crowd supporting global warming knows a LOT less then they claim.

no one says we shouldn't do what we can but a LOT of people have problems paralyzing our economy and destroying the rather delicate balance we have when there are so many unanswered questions!

Answer 12

Some are honestly mistaken.  Others see conspiracies against them in everything.

Many are Conservatives who take politics to extreme lengths.  They might do well to listen to these guys:

"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"

There's a lot less controversy about this is the real world than there is on Yahoo answers:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/a...

And vastly less controversy in the scientific community than you might guess from the few skeptics talked about here:

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

EVERY major scientific organization has issued an official statement that this is 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 Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Association, etc.

Answer 13

When a scientifically observed 0.05 degree celsius rise per year for a 250 year period average who can disagree? james the hollow earth man