Why do some people not understand global warming?

Question

Global warming is not a fade issue although Al Gore has made it one. Global warming or Climate Change has more to do with pollution then and destruction of our natural orld. It has little to do with Leo Dicaprio or Sheryl Crow, but it does exist. We are we getting more lung diseases, viruses, weird weather. Why do you think that is?

If you where to eat something bad or drink to much what would your body do? Pollution has been going on for decades, mostly since the industrial revolution. We are/ have made our world sick. What are we going to do about?

Answer 1

Actually, I don't think you can provide any real data that shows that, "We are getting more lung diseases, viruses, weird weather."  So I guess the real question is - why don't you understand global warming?

Answer 2

Whatever you call it 's pollution that has contributed to climate change.  For those that say the earth goes in cycles that's fine put that is mix of fact and theory.   The real question is how many humans were around through this past climate change and what do you think happened to them?  They probably died of starvation from drought or where flooded out or froze to death.  So what are we going to do to survive?

Answer 3

U need to get more worried as a large part of the world doesn't believe either.. We are a Small country compared to the world . The Chinese is just coming into the world market and with great acceleration to catch up . So their accelerated fossil fuel use could be 10 times ours . That is 1 billion people .Then there is India and they are trying to catch up more slowly but they will get well on there way in 10 years and will use fossil fuel about 5 times what we are using .  that is another billion people. If your data on green house Gas  wasn't so wrong u might have a chance  . Oh yes and there are a billion Moslem's who want to kill U.

Answer 4

The time period that measurements have been done is too short. The earth goes through a series of warming and cooling over centuries. It could be a natural warming trend.

Answer 5

Pollution is not the same thing as global warming, CO2 is not and has never been a pollutant.  You seem to have confused pollution (which is bad and should be cleaned up, pollution includes things like dumping waste in rivers etc.) with global warming which is a fake idea (the proposed solutions are things like limiting CO2 emissions, and stopping the use of fossil fuels).  There is somethimes a fine line between the two but global warming is not the same as pollution.

The theory of man-made global warming is false.  Anyone who believes otherwise has not investigated the evidence or is purposely remaining ignorant to the legitimate opposition to global warming.  I have given up an one and a half hours to watch “An Inconvenient Truth” so I ask you to do the same and watch the movie detailing the opposition.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...  

Another general resource: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warm...

CO2 is not causing the globe to warm the opposite is true, the warming is increasing the atmospheric CO2.  When the world heats it gradually increases the temperature of the oceans which serve as the largest CO2 sink.  As the oceans heat up they release CO2 which is stored in them.  The information comes from the same data Al Gore uses, the temperature always goes up before the concentration of CO2 goes up.

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/artic...

CO2 makes up only .03% of our atmosphere.  Water vapor, another greenhouse gas, makes up 1-4% of our atmosphere, this gas is acknowledged to be the main greenhouse gas.  All human activities combined contribute only 6 Gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere each year.  Animals, through respiration, decomposition, etc contribute 150 Gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere.  So humans contribute only a small amount of CO2 to the atmosphere which is already in very small concentrations in the atmosphere.

http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/science.html This is where my data came from, it is an interesting site, it displays the same graphics as Al Gore in his movie but it tells how low the human contribution is.  So Al Gore is using the same data but coming to a different conclusion, who do you want to believe a politician with no scientific training or the NASA CO2 laboratory, a group of scientists who spend their entire careers studying CO2.

We know the greenhouse effect is real it is a necessary effect to keep our planet at a habitable temperature.  However if our current warming is due to greenhouse gasses it would cause warming in the troposphere , but the troposphere is actually getting cooler.

http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/temperature... That points to other explanations to our current warming.

So what is causing our current warming, it is the sun.

http://web.dmi.dk/solar-terrestrial/spac...

http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2003/s...

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/06...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/...

The fact that only the earth’s surface is warming points to direct heating from the sun rather than heating due to greenhouse gasses.  Also other planets in our solar system are warming pointing to a common cause of warming, that common cause being the sun.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/0...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/sola...

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/sola...

The global warming crowd says our glaciers are melting and animals will suffer this is another false claim.

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2Sci...

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA235.htm...

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/

The global warming crowd also claims a scientific consensus on the issue, this is wrong in two ways.  One, there is no consensus, this is a false claim to make you believe in global warming by suppressing the opposition.  http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Second, even if there was a consensus it would mean nothing, science is not politics, you don’t vote on theories to determine their legitimacy.

Here’s 21 pages of websites that disagree with global warming.

http://www.climatechangedebate.org/docum...

The thought that the only scientists who disagree with global warming are paid by oil companies is simply a stupid statement with no reality.  This is the most illogical argument by people in support of global warming.  Aside from being completely false it begs another question: Who pays global warming supporters?  The answer is big environmental agencies that make millions off of global warming each year by teaching, publishing books, and selling environmentally clean products.  

The IPCC is the main supporter of global warming, their statements are defended blindly by people who don’t want to admit that global warming is not real.  People will claim that they took into account natural sources of CO2, they didn’t.  Take a look for yourself:

http://www.ipcc.ch/activity/srccs/index....  That is the latest IPCC report, read the entire report, do a search of the documents, there is absolutely no mention of natural sources of CO2.  The natural sources have been completely ignored.  Also people will claim that the IPCC took the sun into account in their report, this is not entirely correct, while the sun is mentioned the report it’s effects have not been accurately represented.

http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/moderr....  The IPCC did not take into account the Svensmark factor.  This would greatly reduce the effect of solar radiation on the earth.  Look back up to the solar resources to see the effect of the sun correctly represented.

Also allegations have been by IPCC scientists who disagreed with the IPCC statements.  They say that their research was censored or taken out of the IPCC report.  This is not the first time the IPCC has lied, they forged the famous “hockey stick” graph, which later resulted in a reissuing of the IPCC report.

Here’s another source that disagrees with the IPCC: http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/Sept1004Glo...

And another: http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/ipcc...

And another: http://www.john-daly.com/guests/un_ipcc....

Quotes form politicians, CEO’s, and others are not proof of global warming, they issue these statements to get votes and customers.  Scientists are able to get published and get time on the media by supporting global warming.  The IPCC continually lies and misrepresents data so they keep their jobs.  

In regards to the precautionary principle that says we can only help if we switch over to alternative energy, this idea is not correct.  While this may seem legitimate it only helps the first world, third world countries can not afford to switch to the more expensive energy options.  Also the US currently spends 4 billion dollars a year on global warming research which could be better spent on research for disease or to fight poverty.  For an excellent example of how the precautionary principle is harmful you do not need to look further than DDT.  This pesticide was cheap and incredibly effective but it was banned because of it harmful effects on egg shells.  Now thousands of people die every year in third world countries because of malaria, a disease that could be easily controlled with DDT.

I hope anyone who believes in global warming they will take a look at the resources I provided.  These resources should convince you that global warming is not man-made, it is caused by cycles in the earths climate.  If you are not convinced I hope you at least take a new look at global warming as an unproven idea.  Remember that global warming is big business for anyone who aligns themselves with it.

I could not go this entire post without mentioning global cooling.  In the 1970’s it was claimed that there was a consensus on the fact that the world was headed into an ice age.  We have seen once before how damaging a false claim about our climate change can be to our world.  Most of the global warming crowd does not want you to know about this scare because it is so similar to the scare today.  Government panels were formed and claimed the world was headed to an ice age, evidence poured in supporting the claim, a consensus was claimed, then the whole issue just faded away.  That is what will happen with the false scare of global warming.

Answer 6

we don't understand , because it doesn't make sense.

join the heresy

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...

Answer 7

Let's just say for theories sake we were suppose to go into an Ice Age, after all according to some scientist we are due.  We are also over due for a pandemic but that hasn't happened yet why?  Because we as mankind have changed the parameters.  We have better , research, medicines and treatment than ever before so we have changed or postponed the outcome on some disease.  Now getting back to the Ice Age scenario,  2/3 thirds of the population have recently joined the industrial revolution (China and India some Eastern European countries) using coal burning for electricity and more gas burning cars now than ever before.  That is a 66% increase in air pollution alone.  Now add to that all the solid waste that is generated and the land pollution that is created that eventually gets into the water.

Now what does common sense tell you?  Pollution and Climate change/Global warming go together.  We need to find cleaner alternative ways of generating power to run our privileged possessions.  We don't have to live like cave people or pioneers we just have to find a better way, a cleaner way of living.  Politics and partisan support aside  and those that treat this as something that is just in vogue or don't believe it same on you.  This is a real situation we have to open our own eyes and minds and ask what do we see?  Nevermind what Al Gore says or George Bush says or any celebrity who is for or against this topic.  What do your senses tell you?

Answer 8

I agree that we need to reduce pollution but I have yet to be convinced that it's causing a climate change. We are coming out and an ice age and the sun's output has been clearly measured as increasing. Read here;

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...

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

Answer 9

Some are people who like to believe in conspiracies.  Others are extreme  conservatives.  For them, if Al Gore or another environmentalist says it it must be wrong, regardless of how many scientists are saying the same thing.

People don't like change.  Global warming is change and requires us to make changes to address it.  They prefer to deny it.

About three things raised earlier in the thread:

The "swindle" movie is wrong.  It is simply a political statement which distorts science.  

"The science might be bunkum, the research discredited. But all that counts for Channel 4 is generating controversy."  

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climat...

Gore's movie may be a little over dramatic, but it has the basic science right.  This movie does not.

Channel 4 itself undercuts the movie in a funny way.  If you go to their website on the movie you find links to real global warming information.  They also say "Confused now?  Ask the Expert."  The link for questions goes to a respected mainstream scientist who supports (mostly) human responsibility for global warming.

It's mostly not the sun, which is responsible for about 10%.  Verified, peer reviewd data here:

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

A more detailed analysis here:

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-...

How can people think that climatologists ignore the robust database of solar radiation?  Or not include it in their analyses?  That's ridiculous.

The "Oregon Petition" is a dubious document".  Some of the signatures seem to be bogus. But, since the petition has nothing but the name of the signer, there's no real way to check.  It was sent out basically as a scam (it tried to look like an official document from the National Academy of Sciences which issued a press release denying it had anything to do with it) by a political organization specifically to be used to oppose the Kyoto treaty.  Checks have been unable to verify that many of the signatures are from scientists.  More here:

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

Bottom line:

"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 and the first Commander of the Naval Space Command

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know - except maybe Newton's second law of dynamics.  Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point,You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."

Jerry Mahlman, NOAA

Answer 10

Ignorance I guess. Many people don't know that ice core samples from polar regions show that the Earth is usually in an ice-age like state that can lasts for millions and even billions of years interspersed with rare, small and warmer interglacial periods (~10^4 years) like the one we are in now.

Answer 11

Global warming is a complex issue and people don't understand it because not even scientist have definite answers or anecdotal evidence (these are the things people respond to). You can talk to five different scientists and get five different outcomes - because there are an infinite number of factors that influence global warming models.  

Since it would be an inconvenience for people to  change their habits, consumption rate  and luxuries they would rather deny the existence and let future generations deal with it.

Answer 12

I would agree with you if you would separate global warming from the issue of pollution. Obviously, we need to do as much as possible to keep our world clean and minimize pollution. We were taught as kids to clean up after ourselves and that life lesson is no less true now than it was then.

But when you tie pollution to global warming, then you start losing your supporters. Global warming has become politicized...even a religion for many. Dissension is heresy. When you stifle...even threaten questioners...you are no longer working in the realm of science.

PS: Watch the Glenn Beck special on tonight on CNN Headline News at 6:00, 8:00, and 11:00 PM (Central Time Zone). It promises to provide many counterpoints to global warming that you just don't hear in the media.

Answer 13

We have always had 'wierd weather'.  All of your points are valid except your references to climate change.  That is my biggest concern with the global warming scam--that it will paint all environmentalists as irrational wackos.