Why do some people deny global warming?

Question

My boyfriends dad says " that d**n al gore and obama talk about global warming all the time and its not happening its just an ice age coming again. just like it did a long time ago. and just says if people survived through the ice age then so can we" he totaled denys global warming all around. i dont understand .. i want to just say look your an idiot..by the way he is republican hardcore.. and im just me.. so if you could help me understand his thinking that would be great.. or if you agree. then why .. thanks

Answer 1

Im republican, and I think global warming is huge problem..so I can't help you there...

And to "I-Love-GM"...who is going to benifit when our world does actually trigger a second ice age, causing problems and damage throughout the world(yes, we would most likely get through it, but the damage would be too severe to fix).

To add on to that, we probably wouldn't here your sorry *** denying global warming if and when that happens

Answer 2

Nobody really knows exactly what is going on and what the outcome will be, so the first thing to keep in mind is that when someone thinks they KNOW...they simply DON'T.  Usually they've seen or heard something that simplifies the tons of data and research, like a radio talk show host, cable TV show, or some website.  Here's a link to the most thoroughly documented and current reports I'm aware of, the U.S. Global Change Research Program:

http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/default.php

I spent several hours studying it last night and it is a massive document; as a layman, it was hard to slog through even part of it and keep track of all the intertwined events, understand some of the charts and so on, but there is a lot of documented evidence and research that goes into a lot of details as far as how the climactic events are related to global warming and the influence that mankind is having on the environment.  The possible outcomes are all couched in terms of probability.

On the other hand, skeptics and deniers seem to grab hold of a single, short term event (a colder than average winter), the credibility of an individual (Al Gore), or narrative explanations of why global warming is not occurring or why mankind cannot influence it, and decide for one reason or another that it is a hoax or a scam.

The problem is that most of the anti-global warming crowd does not have the kind of documentation and research to counter the evidence in favor of global warming and the potential effect mankind may have on it.  So you have a group of people who, in the absence of research and data that disprove the conclusions of large scientific organizations that clearly state the potential outcomes are unknown, saying stuff like because Al Gore has a big house that uses a lot of energy AGW is for sure a fraud.

That's not very influential.  It's more funny than anything else, and I for one am starting to suffer the consequences of coming to YA habitually to see what crazy stuff people who have their minds made up are coming up with to 'disprove' global warming.  Rush Limbaugh says consensus is not science...so that means that there is nothing scientifically sound about the research and data that yields information which indicates statistical probabilities and hypotheses about what could happen as a result of AGW in time to come.  The TV weatherman can't predict whether it will rain next week, so no one can predict the climate in ten, twenty or 100 years.  Al Gore is fat.

But if you separate out all the ridiculous assertions from the underlying rationales, it isn't so much AGW itself that the skeptics and deniers are concerned about, it is the effect it may have on western culture and particularly our lifestyles in the United States...many of the deniers-especially here at YA from what I can see-have just got off on a tangent that has distracted them from the real concerns.  The concerns are draconian legislation that will take away some of our liberties to buy and drive what and where we want, live whatever lifestyle we can afford...skeptics are concerned that costs will rise expotentially for individuals and businesses and that in turn will crumble the economy.  They fear that other nations around the world will try to extract concessions that will leave this country unable to compete in world markets while less developed nations pollute without consequence, and moreover that the issue of AGW is being used as a political agenda to take from the U.S. and give to other countries-indeed, that the hidden agenda is actually to destroy the U.S, democracy, and western civilization altogether.

So that is some pretty heavy-duty stuff that we really should be talking about rather than debating whether Al Gore is a hypocrite or not.  By and large, most of us here in the West do have it pretty good, and the skeptics/deniers seem to feel that conceding even the most minute points will risk that liberty ad comfort, as if any concession at all will open the floodgates that will make us the modern-day equivalent of serfs to lords we do not wish to serve.  That is a scary thought, and I don't think it is fair to couch it purely in terms of  selfishness and greed-but the argument about global warming itself has dwindled to one not unlike 'debating' what color your neighbor painted his house; the vast majority in the neighborhood are saying it's blue and have samples that match, color wheels and who knows what, while others are saying no, it's yellow, and all those fancy things you're showing to prove it don't add up to satisfactory evidence that it is blue.  And Joe Blow himself, well he just painted his house to make money off it.

Anyway, that's my answer.

Answer 3

I think the real question is why don't YOU deny it? Do you even question it, or do all the pretty graphs have you in a trance?

Here's one thing to consider. Who is going to benefit from global warming going away? Not the media, not the government, not the people researching it, and not large corporations. And that even includes Exxon.

Answer 4

Very good question, I've seen to many of this type. Their reasoning is as humans, we like to feel powerful and that we influence nature. So scientist being only human look for that relationship. They say it's a way for the government to control people through scare tactics. They say it's way for certain companies / individuals to make money. To them it's conspiracy.

That's all I've heard. I think this the reality of it: Humans don't do to much when it comes to awareness and activism. If it doesn't exist - we have nothing to worry about. It it does: it's going to hit us ten times harder because only half of us even regard it's there. Aye!

Answer 5

I've got something for you to think about. Most of that carbon that was stored for millions of years is being released over the United States, especially over the east coast.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJpj8UUMT...

On any given day, the CO2 concentrations over the east coast of the United states are up to and sometimes greater than 4 times the global average of 385ppm. Satellites pass over that area that measure the temperature in the atmosphere. In the daytime when the sun passes over, it heats the ground and the ground emits infrared radiation at the speed of light, up toward space. The CO2 as well as  water vapor and other molecules with three or more atoms in the atmosphere absorb about half of that radiation and then immediately re-radiate it in all directions. The problem with the CO2 climate driver theory is that CO2 is such a small percentage of the atmosphere that it is nearly insignificant compared to the other greenhouse gases. Most of the temperature increase from greenhouse gases happens in the lower troposphere, which is the part of the atmosphere that is closest to the ground. Since the east coast of the United States has the highest CO2 concentrations, up to 1500ppm, we should see more warming of the lower troposphere in that area, if CO2 has such a profound effect. Here is a graphic of the globe that shows warming trends for the past 30 years, as measured by some of the most accurate satellites in the world and compared to weather balloon measurements for accuracy. Look at figure 3.

http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_descri...

Do you see any more warming over the east coast of the US than any other area of the globe?

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Refere...

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/su...

http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar

Answer 6

You're going to get a lot of answers from people who don't deny global warming speaking for people they don't understand.  I can't speak for anyone but myself, but here's MY stance:

Global warming is environmental, not man-made.  The driving force of climate change is the Sun.  All man can do is adapt...in the meantime, question everything you're ever told.  Never accept information without supporting research.  You can begin researching global warming yourself by seeking out a comparison of historic climate change and historic solar cycles.  It's no coincidence record temperatures on this planet are happening at the same time the Sun is going through the most active period it's seen in over a thousand years.  The link rules out CO2 as the leading cause of climate change.

Answer 7

How many people do you think survived the last ice age?  Certainly not 6 billion.  

I am sure humanity will survive another climate change, but it is happening so rapidly, there is likely to be a lot of death and destruction.

Also, is he claiming that it's actually global cooling and not global warming?  It sounds like he's not too informed.  Being a Republican and being threatened by the idea is one thing, but even Bush can't ignore it anymore.

If you really want to understand his perspective, there are many right-wing blogs that ignore the science.  Try googling something like "global warming hoax" or "global warming crock."

Answer 8

Show your bf's dad this video! It's that d**n Bush White House saying that AGW is real and is the cause of the flooding and tornadoes!

Answer 9

Because there is no real science to back up anthropogenic global warming. AGW is illogical and there is more evidence to disprove it.

Try to understand the science behind the opposing perspective.

And work on your grammar and spelling.

Answer 10

QUESTION: What is the percentage of graduates in physics in the US compared to other countries such as in Japan and continental Europe?

I guess you have your answer.

We even have already at high school spectrophotometry labs to study the spectral emission and absorption. So it is a problem of education and access to basic knowledge.

On the top of that, as sad as it is, one of the wealthiest and most advanced nations in the world is also one of the most superstitious (create alternative explanation for what you can not explain rationally). Ancient Greece by some aspects was more advanced than the present US.

A large number of US citizen also lack the education to research and judge sources of information.

Moreover, more than in any other places in the world, knowldege in the US is acquired on an empirical basis (as opposed to Japan for example).

Answer 11

As a former "republican hardcore" (who is now a proud independent) who accepts the reality of global warming, let me give you some insight into your dad's position.

The vast majority of people in the US do not have a very extensive education in science or logic.  Thus, most people have to choose who they will believe rather than study complex issues themselves and come up with their own independent view.

Sadly, many of the "republican hardcore" crowd get their information on subjects like this from well-known "republican hardcores" who also have little or no science training.  So anyone that listens to (for example) Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity will get a highly biased view of global warming from a person who has no significant scientific knowledge.

It's not that Limbaugh or Hannity are purposefully being deceptive, but they have such a strong political ideology (which includes fear of anything coming from Democrats or environmentalists) that they wouldn't even consider the possibility that global warming (an issue first raised by environmentalists) could be real.

People like Limbaugh & Hannity make their living by working up peoples emotions. If their audience isn't angry about some issue, they'll stop listening. So they paint global warming (and many other issues) as an attack against good patriotic Americans who listen to their programs. Thus, their listeners are emotionally angry and strongly biased against any valid scientific information that supports global warming.

The same problem occurs to "democratic hardcores". They are often ignorant, and merely believe what their self appointed leaders tell them.

Sadly, we live in a media pundit driven society. And those pundits thrive when there is anger between opposing political views.  

If you want to know the truth about global warming, read what actual climate scientists from research organizations say about it. Here's some links to help:

NASA Global Warming Q&A:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/G...

The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research Global Warming FAQs

http://www.ucar.edu/news/features/climat...



Department of Geology and Geophysics at Yale Global Warming FAQ

http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~sherwood/...



NOAA Global Warming FAQ

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/glob...

Answer 12

If someone would just produce some evidence for significant man made global warming then most of the skeptics would stop being skeptics.  The fact is that nobody has done this.  

A lot of skeptics are highly educated and have a good understanding of the claimed physics of global warming - that's why we are skeptics.

Answer 13

More than likely he doesn't believe global warming is caused by human activity. Did you read that Mars has gotten warmer also? The last time I checked, there weren't any power plants or SUVs on Mars.

  Being a Republican has nothing to do w/ it.

Answer 14

They don't deny global warming just all the hype that surrounds it. More and more people are feeling 'got at' and over taxed. Perhaps we should be looking at ways to use the changes rather than concentrating only on stopping it [when we probably cant] and using it to raise taxes to fill politicians purses.

Answer 15

cus its a ploy to make people forget the real topics and make them easer to control.

Answer 16

you're right.

but it will do you no good to argue with him.

i read this recently:

"The greatest obstacle to knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge." Daniel Boorstein.

people have an urge to think the world is the way they want it to be, even to the point of denying what they can see.

that seems especially true in the US today.

keep in mind the magazines we read.

US.

SELF.

how narcissistic can we get?

he is right about one thing.

correcting the problem will be very expensive.

and will get more expensive the longer we ignore it.

it surely is not easy.

that's why all of the EU countries have missed their Kyoto targets.

however, pretending the problem doesn't exist is no better than someone pretending that a cancer spreading through his body doesn't exist.

there is, however, a problem.

the cost of living, and taxes.

by any standard of measure, in the last 6 years, the divide between the standard of living of the rich, and most folks is getting wider.

most folks have less buying power today than they did 5 years ago.

so they think that there should be tax cuts, and cheaper gas, and cheaper food, etc.

it's as if, "We're Americans, we're entitled to it."

one thing you should keep in mind is what tax cuts have done to you personally.

tax cuts have gone mostly to the rich.

and been paid for by deficits.

if you pay taxes, the first $3,000 goes to pay interest on the national debt.

and that will be true forever.

it's kind of like there's a $60,000 mortgage on which every tax payer must pay interest.

this is way too long already.

the real question is, what are you to do.

you're not going to fix him.

one would hope your bf is more open.

keep in mind, the acorn doesn't fall far from the tree.

when you're picking someone for a long time, look at the tree.

that's where he learned his values.

good luck.

Edit:  Ken,  "People like Limbaugh & Hannity make their living by working up peoples emotions ......"  good points, but i might question just a bit.

1)  i think you give them more credit than they deserve.  i think that in most cases, they do know better.  and "stretching the truth" is far to mild an accusation.

2)  i think most of those that to some degree understand AGW try to persuade with logic, whereas those that want to deny it use more bullying tactics.  it takes some doing to deny the bully, and side with the logical argument.

btw, i've copied some of the links you posted, and occasionally post them myself.  i try to give you credit, but i'm sure i forget sometimes.

Answer 17

I deny it that it's man made because at first I thought we were causing the weather to change.  But when I first heard of Al Gore and what he was doing, then he starts talking about a carbon tax.  Then I researched what a carbon tax was, pertty much a guilt tax for being humans and using electricity thus creating an alleged "carbon footprint."  I looked up where the money for where carbon taxes would go and there didn't seem to be any governing body, no specific entity.  The money goes directly to Uncle Al and private investors.  The rub is, it doesn't actually DO anything to reduce pollution, which is the real issue.  All carbon credits do is allow somone to live as they please.  

Again, I will not pay a carbon tax for the privelege of driving to work when I need to, or when I want to flop down in front of the TV and watch yet another news story about global warming.

By the way CFC's were found to not be the cause of holes in the ozone.  These occur naturally.  But as usual, the gum'mint made everyone stop using it for a less effective refridgerant.  And in a few years, there's another-- yes, another government mandate -- that the present refridgerant be phased out for yet another MORE costly refridgerant for air conditioners.  Adding up to $600.00.

Like your dad, I've seen scares come and go before and they all become white noise after awhile because none of them happened.  Meanwhile the really important things and issues get swept under the rug, our attention is diverted to this nonsense about man made global warming, when real pollution issues threaten us and paying a tax so a few can get fabulously wealthy is not going to solve the problem.

Answer 18

Well, Coming from a democrat, its hard to understnad his thinking. I think that republicans just view global warming as something that is not man made, and is just natural. This completely goes agains my belief, however, becasue I think that it is deforestation, car pollution, etc. They deny global warming becasue either they are scared to deny which may seem very hard to beleive or they are uninformed.

Answer 19

Only idiots call there elders idiots

Answer 20

There are many reasons to deny global warming. For one the oceans are actually cooling due to ice shelfs braking off and melting. The reason this is happening is because there are 2 giant wholes in our Ozone layer one at the north pole and one at the south pole. And those got there from cfc's or carbofluerocarbons which is why they are much illegalized now. ANDTHOSE WERE MAN MADE!

However I think a more correct term would be global climate change because the climates all over are deffinately acting strange

Answer 21

To answer your question:

1 - Denial is the first reaction of many people to bad news (see grief management, alcoholism, etc)

2 - Fear of change - many people are simply afraid of anything that may change their comfortable worlds. By definition, these people are conservative, hence the number of Republicans who are GW deniers

3 - Vested interest - accepting that GW is (partly) man made, means that activities that many people make money from (cars, oil, etc) may have to reduce

4 - Selfishness - if GW is man made then man has to do something to reduce it; this will mean not being lazy (riding bicycles instead of the car) or otherwise seeing a change in lifestyle; pessimists (Republicans) see this change as having to be negative whereas optimists (Democrats) see this as an opportunity for improvement.

But Nickel Johann hits the nail on the head - it is ignorance that is the main cause. While the country of Vanuatu disappears under the waves (and is suing the US for causing this), while the UK government spends billions of pounds to improve flood defences against the rising sea, while The Netherlands dvelop 'floating houses', while the UN and the G8 worry about future conflicts caused by GW (water and food), the USA carries on playing their fiddle while Rome burns (or in this case, the whole world!)

As for Ben O... there is so much evidence out there (and look at some of the links I've provided, it's amazing that anyone can still be in denial.... there's loads of it but some people (for the reasons listed above) just don't want to hear...

very sad indeed, especially for those of yopu who have, or are planning on having, children...

I found evans michael's response interesting: "Never accept information without supporting research" yet doesn't provide any links to support his statements.

He also says "The driving force of climate change is the Sun" which is true, but misleading; it suggests that the ONLY driving force is the sun, which is not at all the case.

He also says "It's no coincidence record temperatures ...are happening at the same time the Sun is going through the most active period it's seen in over a thousand years."

Why not? Coincidences happen all the time!

NASA says that this is a 400-year high, not 1,000:  

In actual fact, "even though the sun's activity has been decreasing since 1985, global temperatures have continued to rise at an accelerating rate" and "the issue of whether the sun's activity is causing global warming had been dispensed with by most scientists long ago."

Finally, he says, "The link rules out CO2 as the leading cause of climate change." - It does no such thing! Even if solar cycles were a factor in GW (which they are not), it doesn't mean that there can be no other, and even bigger, factors such as CO2 - very poor logic!

The UK's Royal Society sums it up quite nicely: "At present there is a small minority which is seeking to deliberately confuse the public on the causes of climate change. They are often misrepresenting the science, when the reality is that the evidence is getting stronger every day."