Why do you try so hard to convince others that GW is not real?

Question

So you don't support the theory of Global Warming, for whatever reason (not "enough" evidence, you hate Al Gore, it snowed today, etc).

Why do you make such a point in saying it's not true, when most supporters just want better treatment of the environment?

I just don't understand...

What do you find so offensive about the idea of people wanting to conserve resources or minimize pollution?

Why are you so opposed to a more environmentally friendly way of life?

(All the "you"s are directed specifically towards the people on here who vehemently oppose the very concept of GW, not the general skeptics)

Answer 1

I understand your question and you were very clear, and yet I am still going to answer.  I apologize if this disturbs you.  I'll try to keep it short (edit: I failed).

I am all for us humans living in a much better balance with nature.  I am glad so many people want to get to that point.

The problem is an issue of credibility.  When claims get overexagerated, when scare tactics are used, when the argument becomes a religion and demonizes those who dare to disagree, it creates a lot of negative feeling and is counterproductive.  It actually turns people against what needs to be done.

As a result, you get a lot of people like those you have targeted with this question, that really get upset and angry because they feel they are being lied to, being taken for a ride, being deceived, and turn completely against the whole thing.   And I think they are right to feel they are being deceived and lied to.

Radicals produce reactionaries.

Heck, it even makes me angry seeing how people push this whole thing when I perceive that there are a whole slew of problems with the concept and how people want to deal with it, and I am someone who would probably be considered an environmentalist by a lot of the average public, although I personally do not consider myself a fanatic on the subject, more of a realist.

It is the whole end of the world scenario that I find most disturbing, what drives me to argue on the subject even though I am called ignorant, self-serving, supported by big companies, or any number of other nasty and completely false things.

I want people to conserve resources and minimize pollution, I want people to live a more environmentally friendly way of life, I want better treatment of the environment.  I just do not think that global warming is the reason we ought to do this.

I fear, sincerely, that when global warming doesn't turn out to be the disaster being sold to us, that a lot of the efforts and gains in conservation and balanced living will be lost and people will be less open to acting in balance with our planet.

It will be a terrible setback for the environmental movement when (if) the truth is different than the scaremongers are selling.

Answer 2

Because AGW (remember to distinguish anthropogenic from natural) is not proven, and no climate model can even begin to encorporate all the variables involved in climate science. We need to remember that the climate cycles, has been much warmer than now in the past, and that according to the Vostok ice cores and common sense, higher temperatures cause carbon dioxide increases, not the other way around. I have nothing against resource conservation and pollution control that isn't AGW based, I encourage it. We must remember that carbon dioxide is NOT pollution, it's an essential gas required for life on Earth. It also constitutes less than 5% of the total atmosphere, if we're going against "greenhouse gases", it would be much more effective to decrease the levels of water vapor in the environment (but we can control water vapor to a lesser degree, as most people realize that water is something we need).

I'm not opposed to a more environmentally friendly lifestyle, but "environmentally friendly" comes at a cost, it's a cost-benefit analysis. Read The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg, he explains it much better.

Answer 3

I'm fairly certain that some of them are plants for the oil industry...

The rest are bored ideologues, trolls, and/or people who are mentally ill... to be entirely blunt.

A certain percentage of them don't mean it, they just get off on being contrary to people who are intellectual and educated.  (Being smart isn't "in" these days.)

Some are just bored and have nothing better to do with their lives (like the myriad anti-AGW housewives who used to frequent this place).

The rest are too heavily invested into a campaign to attack and discredit science in general and insert their own beliefs.  These are the same people who want to argue that evolution is a belief system and that creationism (newly re-dubbed Intelligent Design{TM}) should be taught in science classes.

In short, they don't understand the world, and through this lack of understanding, feel the need to force their ignorance on everyone else as a knee-jerk psychological reaction in order to avoid cognitive dissonance.

Those feigning a concern for "science", if you'll notice, never bring up supporting data... just conjecture.  These "yous" are likely concern trolls or just confused and ignorant.

Answer 4

kevin s - Gore is a very wealthy man, who could make far more sitting on corporate boards, and giving speeches on something else.  The idea he's in this for the money is ludicrous.

Boomer - There are about 15 major climatological models, listed under Source.  Although they're quite different, they ALL say that, right now, the warming is caused by greenhouse gases.  In statistical terms the "signal" from greenhouse gases is so strong it drives any reasonable model.  There's a reason why most all climatologists agree that global warming is real, and mostly caused by us

Using compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) actually reduces mercury pollution.

Fossil fuels contain mercury.  Using incandescent bulbs causes more mercury to be emitted from power plants.  More than the tiny amount (0.005 grams or less) that is in a CFL.

It's better if you dispose of old CFLs properly so that even the tiny amount of mercury is not released.  But, no matter how they're disposed of, CFLs reduce mercury pollution.

http://www.cityofberkeley.info/sustainab...

http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cfl...

Answer 5

The "yous" say the things they say out of defense, either because they themselves have wronged the planet in ways they can never take back or they feel powerless to do anything about what they are currently doing.

I believe a lot of people are just lazy, being environmentally aware needs constant well "awareness" you can't just say your environmentally aware, you actually have to show it in your daily actions.

At first it is a big pain in the you know what, but as time goes on it becomes easier, second nature like burping after swilling your beer! Or turning a light off after you exit a room, same thing!

The people who fight against it are probably just not ready for the responsibility involved, it's a big commitment to yourself and the Earth, but it's also one that needs to be taken seriously.

Answer 6

Whether or not there is global warming is not the issue.... the Earth's climate is not static....it is either in a warming or cooling cycle.  The issue is whether or not Man is the cause of either.  

Think about this:

If the 'Man-did-it' global warming advocates are so serious, then why on earth did as many as 15,000 of them jump on pollution-spewing jet planes to attend a climate conference in resort locations in Bali..... to discuss how WE......the 'little people'....should be more responsible in OUR use of energy!!??  These geniuses who supposedly are experts on what the climate is going to do have never heard of 'Video-Conferencing??!!

How are sensible people supposed to take the Gore-gonites seriously when they set such examples??  As each day passes, the 'Man-did-it' folks are being seen...more and more... as devisive fakes!

Answer 7

i believe in climate change, and i believe the climate is changing now, but i don't believe that the earth is currently warming and i don't believe man is big enough to cause climate change be it warming or cooling. I do believe we should be greener to protect our countryside and to protect our own health as the pollutions we create aren't good for our own health. in stead of blaming people for what may happen, they should be helping us to prepare for what may happen.

Answer 8

Because the global attempt to classify CO2 as a pollutant could have devastating consequences for the environment. Just one example, millions of square miles of tropical forest have already been cleared to make way for growing crops to produce ethanol. And for what? The mythical carbon neutral lifestyle, there is only one known technology that can provide energy without polluting the environment, and that is nuclear. Spewing trillions of tons of additional agricultural run off into the worlds oceans creates more problems that it solves.

Answer 9

For the same reason that AGW proponents try to ram their beliefs down the "deniers" throats. The global warning alarmists are trying so hard to convince people of something that most people are not buying into. Why? Because people have minds of their own. Back in the 80's Tipper Gore told us that music was responsible for people murdering each other. We have to have "parental advisory" stickers. Last time I checked, murders have not stopped and the music, in fact, at time glorifies it. That family is whack.

Answer 10

I still am trying to understand which computer model of global warming is the One True Model. None of them agree, and none of them have been successful at spotting any trends. In fact, some of them have been full-out wrong. All of them use biased or questionable data selection techniques, and all of them are pushed to transfer large amount of money from the common masses to politicians and huge conglomerates owned by them.

I bundle up in winter and use a swamp cooler in the summer. I  am a fiscal conservative, and do not like to spend any more money than I absolutely must.  I lived through the coming Ice Age of the 70's, the mass starvation and death of the oceans in the 80's, five or six nuclear winters, and have studied religious apocalyptic thought and how it was used to control people in the Middle Ages. Entire industries were changed to stop the ozone hole, only to find out the formula in the model was off by a factor of 10, and that we didn't have anything to do with its creation in the first place.

I have no idea why G.W.Bush's house is so energy efficient, and why Al Gore's house is an energy pig.

And yes, we must all stop ManBearPig.

Now---please be careful with that mercury filled Red Chinese made CFL---don't want to poison the environment, right?

Answer 11

I believe the climate does, has and always will change. I don't trust Al G. I think he is a huge hypocrite and with the sale of carbon credits has a lot to gain  $$$$ wise.

Being an avid outdoors man though I care a lot about keeping a clean environment and as far as conserving I think I go a lot farther with making do with what I have before buying new and I even Bank snow against the outside of my house to keep the cold winter winds from making the floor cold and that saves considerable energy and money.

Your accusations of a lot of us are unfounded.

Answer 12

Math and science is loosing out to religion and apathy in America. We're about to loose our #1 position to Asia.

Pretty sad... 18% of Americans think the Sun rotates around the Earth! More than half don't believe in evolution and then there's my favorite; 65% of Americans never read a complete book after graduating from high school.  

Many will never get it. All we can do is lead by example and show the way towards a better future and hope someday they might follow...

Answer 13

I agree totally with what you are asking and have actually asked a similar question myself. I received only rants, insults and accusations. I was stunned with not only the level of ignorance displayed but how it is possible to twist the facts. 1998 was the hottest year and is now used as a benchmark to prove that global warming is not taking place because it has never been that hot since. Forget the effects of El Niño or anything else. All the scientists involved with any data collection have been bribed and anyway the entire concept was invented by Al Gore. (I found  Inconvenient Truth interesting. The claim that much of Gore's evidence has "now been discredited" is itself an untruth. In a work of such breadth and scope as An Inconvenient Truth, the occasional inaccuracy, such as when Gore states that the number of polar bears is diminishing when in fact the numbers were not declining (2006 remember), does not therefore mean that the ice is not melting and in no way disqualifies An Inconvenient Truth as an accurate assessment of global warming due to human activity. No single work has gone so far to educate so many.)

  So,  what the deniers ( I am not comfortable with that label as it seems to give them group credibility) basically say is "I don't believe it. Prove it and I still won't believe it"

edit dpj5...dont try and be smart mate cos it doesnt suit you.

Answer 14

It is a matter of compulsion or choice. AGW proponents are attempting to make certain behavior that they espouse compulsory and state enforced all under the justification supported by theories that are at odds with observations. If you want me to be environmentally friendly, convince me of its benefits. Do not try to make it mandatory by the force of law unless you want a fight. There is absolutely no difference between mandating that everyone be Christian and mandating that everyone be carbon neutral.

Answer 15

Just because you don't believe in "global warming", doesn't mean that the person is "pro pollution".  

Most people are for a cleaner environment while not subscribing to the religious dogma of so called "global warming".  

It's the people who believe in global warming that are looking to force people to live as they think best.  This is the wrong approach as it will reduce carbon the same way prohibition reduced alcohol.

Answer 16

We try to convince people it is not real becasue the governmnet will intervean and take away some of our freedom. They will make us pay carbon taxes, make us buy certain kind of light bulb. They also will tell us what cars to buy. The goverment is involved enough with us already. The main reason though is that global warming is not casued by man and is mainly used by liberals for the above reasons.