Why do scientists skeptical of global warming present the public with misinformation instead of facts?

Question

I think the scientist skeptical of AGW who I respect the most is Richard Lindzen. He doesn't deny that humans are causing global warming, but just believes the results won't be as bad as we expect. However, when addressing the public - like in a recent Newsweek opinon piece: http://www.newsweek.com/id/35543 - he fuels the fires of ignorance instead of informing the public. Lindzen's arguments (L) and RealClimate's (RC) responses:

L: because we don't know what the ideal temperature of the planet should be, we shouldn't be concerned about global warming

RC: whatever it's imperfections, it is the world that society is imperfectly adapted to

L: The current alarm rests on the false assumption that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week

RC: Weather is not climate!

L: Climate modelers tried to delete the Midieval Warm Period

RC: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/lindzen-in-newsweek

Answer 1

Only the simple-minded believe in the fairy tale of global warming.  They also believe in the tooth fairy, monsters, and that Al Gore is God.

There is strong, compelling proof that global warming is a giant hoax.  Any reputable scientist would not rest his name on something as rediculous as the global warming theory.  The ones who do are called junk-scientists, and need to be silenced.

Answer 2

All deniers of the environmental degradation we see at the hand of man suffer from the same mental incapacity.

It is inconceivable to them, absolutely beyond their capacity, to accept the fact that our very way of life is the cause of the problem.

It's a stunning revelation, who can blame them?

And so, irrationality knows no bounds. We can and will invent any explanation rather than accept the scientific facts (not to mention the common sense) of the situation.  

As far as the skeptical scientists: The more intelligence one possesses the more detailed and convincing becomes the argument.  In some cases entire treatises are constructed and can only be deconstructed by a corresponding expert who can winnow out the flaws, however subtle.

This is the biggest question, the biggest problem of our age.

The most troubling part of this to me is that these types would rather implode, commit suicide, commit us all to destruction rather than admit they might be wrong.

If enough of us don't come around quickly enough we will pass a point of no return and it will be to late; no matter what our efforts.

Answer 3

Because there is big money to be made out of promoting controversy. this is also, why the media ha stopped being news, and started being TV nd radio broadcasted tabloids.

Answer 4

The truth is not a deceptive argument.

No matter how much you want to hold onto your beliefs, real world occurances don't agree with your assumptions, you are simply wrong and nature will prove it on it's own without our help.

Answer 5

I notice that your link was written by Mann who created the hockey stick to exaggerate his claim that humans have caused warming.   It is interesting to me that you accept the word of Mann without any hesitation and discount anything that disagrees with your faith that man is necessarily causing harmful global warming.  Your conclusions have more to do with faith than science and are politically based, in my opinion.  

WC said "whatever it's imperfections, it is the world that society is imperfectly adapted to"  I find it interesting that you consider that a meaningful response as if climate were static.

Answer 6

I know! Their job is to tell us the facts, and if they dont do that, why employ them?! My dad and i were just talking about that over the phone LAST nite!

Answer 7

Skeptics of global warming DO NOT present the public with misinformation!  It is simply the other way around.  Do your research on the subject and not just from bias sources.    GW believers often say that almost every scientist believes global warming.  Well guess what that is completely FALSE.  Actually scientists have been writing to politicians to say that there is simply not near enough evidence to validate global warming as being real.  Also NASA has said that the earth will probably be in a period of global cooling for at least the next 20 yrs.  Oh by the way the pic of the polar bear floating on ice, that was taken in August.  Also there is supposed to be volcanic activity going on in the arctic, which could account for some of the ice melting.  Also glaciers in some places have actually been growing.  Now if global warming were real don't you think that glaciers everywhere would be retreating or at least stay the same size.  Also it has been proven that this past winter has been actually been colder than some in the past.  If global warming were real don't you think that the temperatures would keep rising.  Also did you know that Al Gore has investements in most of these companies that are "going green".  Do you think there could be a conflict of interest there?  If Al Gore was so worried about GW you would think that he would stop using his private jet, and riding around in his big limo.  Also the KYOTO treaty was alterd, a lot of facts were left out of the treaty, that weren't supportive of GW as being real. Also did you know that making this hybrid vehicles actually produces more pollution.  Over 31,000 SCIENTISTS have signed a petiton to send to the gov't stating that there is simply NOT enough evidence to support GW, and that there actually may be benefits from raised CO2 levels.   Also there have been scientists wanting to debate the issue with Al Gore publicly, however Al Gore will not agree to it.

Answer 8

Because it is a huge money making scam for politicians and corporate greed.

Funny how that very simply and attacking statement usually used by the non-acceptors can be just as easily turned around and used for this.

Answer 9

i think its like when we were little, and i could always beat my kid bro in an argument , he would lose it and just try to kick me.

also, they know whatever rubbish they come out with there are still loads of people who really really want to believe it.

Answer 10

I think that applies most to those who completely deny AGW. If you want to do that, or if you want to try to portray AGW as relatively harmless you have to alter the truth a little. Its amazing how many people who have acted as spokespersons for the tobacco industry have turned to making money in this way.

Greenpeace set up a website giving information groups and individuals (not all scientists) who have received money from Exxon Mobil:

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/wiki/index.p...

Often these 'scientists' are not qualified in relevant fields. Rather they are social scientists, geographers economists etc. Yet they still get described as scientists which misleads people.

The worst thing I've seen is the media misrepresenting scientists:

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

Answer 11

Lindzen is just as human as anyone else.  When he can't win a debate with evidence and reproducible studies (his iris hypothesis was shot down when other scientists couldn't reproduce his results) he falls into the temptation that besets many debaters.  His emotions put winning the debate (or somehow redeeming his original position) above the truth (which in this case would require conceding his own past errors).

Answer 12

I have a question.  Why do you ask loaded questions?  How about asking the same question but directed at global warming proponents?  You'll come up with a lot more examples.