Why do people continue to deny global warming when the evidence/science says it is real and caused by man?

Question

Why do people continue to deny global warming when the evidence/science says it is real and caused by man?

Answer 1

Well, this is clearly a leading question, which serves to instantly polarize those participating in any debate or discussion on the topic. That alone sets the stage for misunderstanding and defensiveness... one reason people hold so tightly to "illogical" opinions.

Beyond that, though, are more complicated issues.

The average person reads newspapers, magazines, and websites... not peer-reviewed, scientific journals. Unfortunately, the news media tends to focus on sensationalism rather than accuracy. Sometimes they exaggerate one side - "at this rate, all dry land will disappear by 2020!" - and at other times they exaggerate the other - "global warming is a complete myth made up by radical environmentalists!" It is therefore very difficult to tell the difference between reality and hype.

Also, even if neutral, understandable, scientifically accurate sources were more readily available, most people wouldn't have the time to thoroughly look into the issue. People have jobs, families, and other responsibilities. They might take the time to stay informed about other important issues - like the Iraq war, or the situation in Darfur - instead of global warming. Calling these people "ignorant" is really not fair. Different people have different priorities.

Of course, there are people on both sides who are just being ornery, as well as those who choose, for whatever reason, not to pay attention to any reports that tell them what they don't want to hear. There's really not much you can do about this, especially in online debates where "flaming" is the norm. If it's a family member or friend of yours, though, try listening to their side first. See what sources they're looking at; ask them exactly what their opinion is and why. If you want them to be receptive, you have to be receptive too.

Answer 2

Several reasons.

First, the general public doesn't read peer reviewed journals on scientific topics or really have the capacity (education) to understand them.  Instead, they base their information on the general media, and consider 'Popular Science' to be the pinnacle of scientific information.

Second, the public doesn't distinguish between a 'Scientist' and an 'Expert on the subject'.  When the public sees a petition signed by 1000 scientists against Global Warming, they don't recongnize that a physicist or chemist isn't an expert on the subject and give that equal weight to true experts.

Third, the media gladly sensationalizes any topic.  Rather then keeping things in context and representing the true scientific consensus, they are happy to put on people who will make the most absurd predictions and present them as experts on the topic.  Along with the second issue, they will happily present someone who has no more education on a topic then the average Yahoo Answers poster as being an expert.

Fourth, many people are conditioned to distrust scientists (or anyone) who tells them unplesant news or tells them they need to do something different or that they are wrong.  Especially in America, people feel they have the right to do whatever they can get away with regardless of the consequences.  That's the 'freedom' their great granddaddies died for in their minds.  For this reason, they will seek out information that supports their preconceived notions rather then looking at the facts and trying to figure out the truth.  This is the same reason that the majority of religous Americans have changed churches at some time in their lives - they want one that fits their own ideas, they don't want to change to fit in.

Fifth, although the people who stand to lose the most if the public begins to recognize Global Warming as a problem are the richest and the largest corporations, the experts on the subject have been portraid as greedy at best, seditious / terrorists at worst.  If you read some of the posts on here, you will see people accusing the scientists of trying to make money (yeah, that huge scientist grant money salary) or even worse, trying to undermine America and sell our wealth to the 'third world'.  The corporations that oppose any change or restrictions on their profitability can pour more money into slandering the science and it's a good investment in their eyes.  If it costs Exxon-Mobil alone 100,000,000 to hire shills and put forward non-peer reviewed studies and junk reports, it still saves them money in the long run over having to make changes.

Finally, there are just a lot of people who don't want to admit people can damage the planet.  It's just like a bad parent being told they are a bad parent - even if it's true it's still fighting words.  Being told that we are destroying the planet is like being told we don't care about our children or other generations - those things are better swept under the rug and ignored.

Answer 3

The Voice of Reason wants to know what evidence.

The evidence that convinced all these scientists to agree with the IPCC report.

The conclusions reached in this document have been explicitly endorsed by ..."

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)

Royal Society of Canada

Chinese Academy of Sciences

Academié des Sciences (France)

Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)

Indian National Science Academy

Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)

Science Council of Japan

Russian Academy of Sciences

Royal Society (United Kingdom)

National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)

Australian Academy of Sciences

Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts

Caribbean Academy of Sciences

Indonesian Academy of Sciences

Royal Irish Academy

Academy of Sciences Malaysia

Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

"In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

National Academy of Sciences (NAS)

State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)

American Geophysical Union (AGU)

American Institute of Physics (AIP)

National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)

American Meteorological Society (AMS)

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

I suppose you expect us to believe that all these scientists are somehow part of a hoax or conspiracy or some other delusional conspiracy theory.

"This consensus is represented in the IPCC Third Assessment Report, Working Group 1 (TAR WG1), the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, and arguably the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in history. While this review was sponsored by the UN, the research it compiled and reviewed was not, and the scientists involved were independent and came from all over the world."

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11...

  I think based on the following, you can give up calling these scientists alarmist.

"The big difference I have with the doubters is they believe the IPCC reports seriously overstate the impact of human emissions on the climate, whereas the actual observed climate data clearly show the reports dramatically understate the impact."

"One of the most serious results of the overuse of the term "consensus" in the public discussion of global warming is that it creates a simple strategy for doubters to confuse the public, the press and politicians: Simply come up with as long a list as you can of scientists who dispute the theory. After all, such disagreement is prima facie proof that no consensus of opinion exists."

"So we end up with the absurd but pointless spectacle of the leading denier in the U.S. Senate, James Inhofe, R-Okla., who recently put out a list of more than 400 names of supposedly "prominent scientists" who supposedly "recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called 'consensus' on man-made global warming."

"As it turned out, the list is both padded and laughable, containing the opinions of TV weathermen, economists, a bunch of non-prominent scientists who aren't climate experts, and, perhaps surprisingly, even a number of people who actually believe in the consensus."

"But in any case, nothing could be more irrelevant to climate science than the opinion of people on the list such as Weather Channel founder John Coleman or famed inventor Ray Kurzweil (who actually does "think global warming is real"). Or, for that matter, my opinion -- even though I researched a Ph.D. thesis at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography on physical oceanography in the Greenland Sea."

"What matters is scientific findings -- data, not opinions. The IPCC relies on the peer-reviewed scientific literature for its conclusions, which must meet the rigorous requirements of the scientific method and which are inevitably scrutinized by others seeking to disprove that work. That is why I cite and link to as much research as is possible, hundreds of studies in the case of this article. Opinions are irrelevant."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/0... The Cold Truth about Global Warming by Joseph Romm

  And in case you didn't know it, there is no proof in any scientific theory.  What there is is overwhelming evidence to support the theory.

Only in mathematics is there such a thing as proof.

Gravity is a theory, no one knows what it is.

We can measure it's effects and theorize about them, but that doesn't tell us what it is.

The arguments about a hoax or scam are absurd, period.  

  Who is scamming you is the Heartland Institute and other propaganda outlets of the oil companies.

Keven S  makes the brilliant statement that it is colder.   Weather in any given year of  region has absolutely nothing to do with whether a global climate change is occurring.   If it was colder worldwide for 20 or 30 years you would have an argument.

  Look at the  skeptic arguments here, and then go look them up at the following websites, and you will see that they are wrong.  The IPCC scientists have been looking at all the information, available, including the ideas of the skeptics for over 20 years now, and have debunked all of them.

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

  http://www.skepticalscience.com/

The only real debates now are about what the effects will be and the rate at which those effects will manifest.

Answer 4

Because we only have information for approximately 200 years.  However the earth is at least 20 million years old.

Answer 5

What evidence? - must be quantitiative and verifiable, not just what you heard someone say

Answer 6

Because the people that deny it is partly responsible and feel very guilty for contributing to it......... Everyone is to blame, just guilty conscious....thats all............

Answer 7

The statement in the first answer would seem to be at odds with every major scientific organization, if you think this is incorrect rhsaunders then post a link to any science organization that denies global warming.

Ones that do : the National Academies of Science of all the G8 countries as well as the national science organizations of China, Brazil, India and Australia.

p.s. the heartland institute isn't a scientific organization and the "oregon institute of science and medicine" is just a big tin shed.

Eric C : re your links Ha Ha Ha Ha HA

This is some of the best evidence I have seen from the denier camp

1) Linked to the telegraph, no story about GW to be seen

2) didn't work

3) didn't work

keep up the good work!

Zac S "the earth is at least 20 million years old" the Dinosaurs that died out 65 million years ago will be shocked to hear that. The Earth is over 4.5 billion years old!

Answer 8

Because the evidence does NOT say that, no matter what you have heard to the contrary.

Answer 9

Human beings don't know anything about anything; yet! That also goes for scientists (who can't even resurrect the dead!). Let's think about what's actually happening. The smog over Asia says to environmental scientists; that man made CO2 emissions has disrupted their atmosphere. While this same smog over Asia says to me, that our earth is effectively "healing" itself. Also, this one degree temperature increase, which has manifested over the last century, renders merely the current point in our global climate's repetitive cycle. Think for yourself!

Answer 10

Give me a good critique of these papers and then I might start believing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics...

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images...

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HF_CLIMA...

Answer 11

But it is getting colder.

Answer 12

You're half right....the evidence shows global warming is real.  The man-made part is extremely lacking in the evidence department.  

A good illustration would be black holes:  They're real....flying through them as a shortcut across the galaxy is a hypothesis yet to be proven.

Answer 13

does global warming exist? yes it does. it has since the beginning of the planet, as has global cooling. it is all there in the geological record. is global warming man made? no it is not. greenhouse gas emissions are  lagging indicator not a leading indicator. in fact as the climate warms, more greenhouse gases are released naturally. what you, and other GW alarmists need to do is stop looking at the last 150 years, and start looking at the geological record. when you do that you will realize that there is little man can to to cause warming or cooling. nature is self correcting, and she will slap us up side the face just to show us that she is the boss, and that we are insignificant.

Answer 14

People are ignorant.  They have heard before though, that global warming problems were about to happen years ago..  So they hear it again and its not a big deal because "they've been hearing it for years and it never happens"

what is different today though, is the RATE of increase of temperatures and its correlation to co2 and water vapor and population increase.  Humans have had a major impact on the earth, as do all organisms, we trash it though in my opinion-  we make things that don't break down back into useful material cycles...  blah blah, i dont want to ramble.

Answer 15

Why do stuped people buy into this big sham ??