Why are we arguing Global warming with the same feeling as a religion? Or, dare I say, 'abortion'?

Question

There are those who are sure the world is ending and those who are sure it is all a scam and everything is perfect. The real answer is certainly somewhere in between.

If we just focus on reducing POLLUTION and POPULATION, won't we do more good with less fighting? And shouldn't we all try to make the world a better place?

Live well and do good!

Answer 1

Most people agree that climate change is occurring.  The disagreement is whether it is a natural part of the earth cycle or man made, and can anything be done about it.

If you search the net thoroughly you will find as many people on either side.

But the emotion in the argument is because of the feeling of impending doom by those who believe it is man made.  Whenever you bring "doom and gloom" into an argument, it gets emotional.

Answer 2

One side has science; I can't speak for the other.

GISS 2007 Temperature Analysis

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2...

"The Southern Oscillation and the solar cycle have significant effects on year-to-year global temperature change. Because both of these natural effects were in their cool phases in 2007, the unusual warmth of 2007 is all the more notable. It is apparent that there is no letup in the steep global warming trend of the past 30 years.  

'Global warming stopped in 1998' has become a recent mantra of those who wish to deny the reality of human-caused global warming. The continued rapid increase of the five-year running mean temperature exposes this assertion as nonsense."

Simply comparing the two sides does not equate  to the two sides being equally discredited.  I would ask you to support that assertion in your question.  

Furthermore, the truth does not necessarily lie in the middle, such as between skeptics and the IPCC scenarios.  Recent indications are that the IPCC may have been far too conservative.  Virtually no one seems to have studied the possibility that their predictions may be far too mild.

Answer 3

This is why all science should be objective.

Objective science takes out personal feelings, biases, emotions, political leanings, and just relies on the facts.

However there are no facts with global warming.  No one can tell you if it will be warmer or colder in 5 years any better than a coin toss.

Answer 4

Because there are a few noisy politically motivated "skeptics".

The world isn't ending, but the vast majority think we're headed for something very bad.

It won't be a Hollywood movie style disaster. Gradually coastal areas will flood and agriculture will be damaged. But it will be very bad. Rich countries will cope, but it will take huge amounts of money. In poor countries many people will die of starvation, but not all of them.

Most scientists say, in 20-50 years. But we need to start right now to fix it, fixing it will take even longer than that.

Really good website for more information here:

http://profend.com/global-warming/

Lots of numerical scientific data proving it real here:

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

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report...

Proof that most scientists think it's real and mostly caused by us here:

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

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

Answer 5

Because its become the religion for the far left.  Evil rich White republicans are the blame for everything so this dovetails with their agenda.  Whether warming is true or not is open to debate.  In the 70's we were now suppose to be in an ice age - guess I missef that one.