Why do global warming believers get offended when I tell them that I think man-made climate change is a hoax?

Question

After studying the data I have concluded that the Earths climate has always been in a state of flux, and there is no concrete proof that climate change is man-made.

Aren't I entitled to my opinion? Don't they believe in intellectual diversity? Why do they get so angry and insulting. It seems like they are a bit defensive or something.

http://garyganu.blogspot.com/2008/07/global-warming-myth-revisited.html

Answer 1

well there are so many things disinegrating our O-zone layer that there are now actually holes in it.

In australia on certain beaches you HAVE to wear sunblock that is at least spf 50. My friend went there as a foreign exchange student and she got in big trouble for not wearing it.

Without our O-Zone layer the sun can break through into the earth more and it is raising our climate a little bit everyday. And sometiems it will also throw of weather cycles. Like i got snow in April last year but non in December or January.

With the sun breaking through and having a direct hit on earth it can do seriosu damage to peoples skin and it is destroying our earth.

Water levels in teh oceans and lakes are higher then ever becuase the ice caps are all melting. pretty soon NY will be under water because it is Sea level and then America probably wont exist anymore becuase basicly our whole econimy depends on NY

And we wont have Louiseanna any more either

its not that we get mad.. or at least i dont becuase i dont know you but i hope that helps you to see why it could be upsetting to some people

Answer 2

For example, it's like telling a scientist that a plant don't need sun light or a source of light to live.  The perception of global warming is that easy if you have the insight and understanding of how the ecological system works.  Yes, you are entitled to your opinion to say that a plant don't need sunlight or a source of light to live or even call the concept a hoax.  Well of course that will offend a lot of experts and people who knows this to be a fact.

A little insight for you.  Trees, Water, and plants is needed to keep our ozone layer.

Is the destruction of trees and plants and the contamination or over usage of water caused by man?

However you answer that last question is the answer to if  global warming is true or not.

Last, *Human made* technology like cars and coal generating factories and other man made technology that release toxic gasses in the atmosphere has an effect on plants, trees and water because of the acid rain created *BY MAN*

The less trees and plants on this planet will cause catastrophic weather patterns and heating up on this planet.    

Hope that helps

Answer 3

Because while the enviroment is being destroyed and we are aware of it and trying to do something about it, you are saying it isn't real and adding to the problem.

Answer 4

Because some people like to believe in hoaxes and myths.  i don't know why.  I am totally on your side all the way though!

Answer 5

Because we hate to deal with the ignorant.

Answer 6

I think that the information age is finally catching up with the global warming people. Before the internet was popular, they had the run of the mill.

Now, that information is readily available with just a click of a key or a mouse, there monopoly is over. You can find the facts with a basic search engine, for both sides of the argument. Which is probably why people who are pushing global warming are getting mad. They are getting their clocks cleaned.

Answer 7

well, for one thing, I can already tell you are not a scientist or engineer because of how you used the term "flux".

misusing terms in a scientific debate is a good way to get people angry at you.

EDIT:  Let me explain:

Temperature is a property, and therefore cannot flux.

Flux describes rates of change of energy and matter through a system (most often an area on the boundary of a system).

Mikira, that's the layman's use of flux. Not the scientific one; which was my point.

Answer 8

AAAAAAAA - You're wrong - Definition of Flux:

1. Constant Change - constant change and instability.

And yes temperature on the Earth have always been in a state of flux. It's not a constant. It fluctuates.

8. theory of chnage - Philosophy the notion that change is the fundamental nature of reality, as described by Heraclitus.

Answer 9

AAAAAAA said

"well, for one thing, I can already tell you are not a scientist or engineer because of how you used the term "flux".

misusing terms in a scientific debate is a good way to get people angry at you."

This is very odd. He is using the term correctly, just not how you would like him to use it.

Bob said:

"Gary is the kind of Conservative these guys think makes Conservatives look bad, by denying scientific fact"

And you Bob, make proponents look bad by confusing a theory with a "scientific fact".

Answer 10

I guess people are entitled to believe the earth is flat.   I've been around it a couple times and know otherwise, but that doesn't mean they aren't entitled to their (wrong) opinion.    As long as they don't try to force their ideas on others and construct policy on their false opinions it doesn't matter to me in the least.

Answer 11

I have experienced the same situation.

Seems like some people feel personally attacked or that their intelligence is being insulted by a person with a different opinion.

I believe I am capable to accept different opinions without  necessarily agreeing with them (about everything not just in this matter).

The irony of this lays on the fact that some of them speak of consuming less, saving resources, energy, etc.... but GETTING ANGRY AND REACTING IRRATIONALLY is  a waste of energy.

Frustration is understandable but certain reactions go beyond that. It looks like weakness or insecurity.

CLARIFICATION

=============

Dana1981: even though we don't share the same opinion, I should say I agree with you that the word HOAX is indeed offensive in the scientific field.

Personally I'm not fond of that word and I've never used it before. There are other "more civilized" terms to express certain opinions.

Answer 12

Guppy

It is the same as if you walked into any fundamentalist church in the country and got up in the pulpit and made a flat statement like:

Jesus was just another prophet and it is how you follow gods law that will determine your fate.

Or

God created every creature with the free will to decide if he/she will be good or evil. Pelagius was right and Augustine was wrong.

This will really get the AGW crowd going because they all believe in original sin and predestination.

Answer 13

A hoax is an intentional deception. Calling global warming a hoax is basically the equivalent to calling the people who study it and accept it liars. Clearly, that's offensive.

While you say you've studied it, I suspect you'll admit that you haven't read a significant number of scientific journal articles (from respected physical science journals) or probably even taken the equivalent of an introductory atmospheric physics course? If that indeed is the case, then your position should be humble, since you are clearly disagreeing with the majority of the worlds climate scientists (right or wrong). Thus, the intellectually honest position for you to take (and one where you wouldn't be offensive) is to say you doubt global warming, but NOT to label it a hoax.

Answer 14

even though I disagree with you I think that a sensible discussion is far more productive than a hard slam and I disagree with those who do so--but I implore you to read more -watch more-and try to understand that the planet has never before had so Meany humans doing so much with out caring what the effects are by the time it is for certain it might be to late --then what -we act like lemmings ?

Answer 15

People will fight for beliefs; facts can speak for themselves.

Protestants and Catholics will argue forever, come to blows and even death to defend their positions. Because there are no compelling arguments either way, the battle rages on.

The GW theorists like to think there's proof, and the GW deniers can come up with a counterargument for every statement.  Watch the battles from afar as entertainment, and refuse to get caught up in the squabble.

Answer 16

Yes, earths climate has always changed, but not for the same reasons and rarely so abruptly. Whats your point? Do you think that the fact that earths climate naturally fluctuates over thousands of years somehow makes it okay that the global temperature rises 2-5C in a 100 year period? It's okay then to have a mass extinction because mass extinctions have happened in the past and if we wait 200,000,000 more years, all kinds of cool stuff will evolve back again and everything will be okay? Is this your logic? Most of the deniers don't have any idea what they are talking about, which is why their gross disinterest in facts is offensive. Like other denialists, the stronger the evidence becomes against them, the more they disbelieve it.

Answer 17

I think  most of those folks are atheists.  Atheism breeds arrogance, and self-righteousness.   Throw in the possibility that many of them are closet anarchists, (delighting in the hope of chaos), and you end up with people who can't believe how stupid you are.  They will all vote for Obama!

Answer 18

When a person holds firm beliefs to be true, and absoultly accepts the evidence for those beliefs, while a majority of the social population is also supporting those beliefs, the ego swells and doesn't accept a counter viewpoint, no matter how well informed that counter viewpoint is.  "They" take the "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude no matter what and will not even consider any evidence to the contary despite that evidence's validity.  For example, NASA studies of average temperature on plantes has revealed that the average temperature on Mars is raising at a faster rate than that of Earth.  Similar NASA data has alos indicated a slower, yet steady temperature increase in Jupiter and Saturn. There is only one common factor affecting all of these, which is the Sun.  The sun accounts for 100% of our planets heat.  If the sun is getting hotter, then it is reasonable to assume that the Earth (and all other planets) would also get hotter as well.  If I could find data on the rest of the planets, I'm sure I would see the same trend as to Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.

Answer 19

True, there has always been natural climate changes but there is strong evidence of that the causes of recent rises is global tempetures are directly related to the quantities of certain gases produced by humans.  The serious consequences for humanity of letting it continue is worrying for many people.  It is offensive when others disregard such evidence of such a serious matter.

Answer 20

I'm not offended. Nor do I feel any need to insult you. But there's a mountain of proof that you're wrong.  And your source is more than a little extreme in his beliefs.

This is science and what counts is the data, not people's intuition.

"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”

Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)

Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut

Here are two summaries of the mountain of peer reviewed data that convinced Admiral Truly and the vast majority of the scientific community, short and long.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Ima...

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report....

summarized at:

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

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

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.

Against all that you have Gary: "Conservative news and opinion, mostly opinion."  Gary is the kind of Conservative these guys think makes Conservatives look bad, by denying scientific fact:

"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"

Another of Gary's causes:

"Television, Computers, MP3 Players, Video Games, Cell Phones, the Breakdown of Morals, and the End of Our Society"

Yeah, I'm going to listen to him, instead of all the scientists.

Answer 21

What people might consider offensive is your use of the term 'hoax'.  A hoax is when a person is intentionally trying to deceive you.  So basically what you're saying is that tens of thousands of climate scientists are all in on a giant conspiracy to falsify data to trick us all into thinking that we're causing the planet to warm.

As a scientist, I think it's offensive you would accuse other scientists of perpetrating a hoax.  But more than that, it's simply impossible.  See Myth #6: http://greenhome.huddler.com/wiki/global...

Now if you want to say you're not convinced by the scientific data, that's fine.  But don't call it a hoax.  That's just wrong.

Answer 22

I agree with you.  Remember, they're the ones who announced that 'there can be no debate'.  

The 'movement' of global warming seems to have become more of a cult to them than dealing with the actual threat itself.  To deny it's existence is the same thing as denying their religion.  I have my own religion and most do in one way or another, and we don't appreciate opposing religions shoved down our throats.

The leftist mind thinks differently than nomal minds.  It's myopic and can only see in one direction at a time, so it hates criticism.  But I say...let them believe what they want as long as it doesn't infringe on other people's freedom but that isn't what's happening.  They are trying to force an opinion on others, and people who doubt their opinions are not tolerable to them.

I wouldn't really care, but their opinion, put into practice, is going to cost everyone lots of money and force needless lifestyle changes in various ways.  That's where I have an issue with them.