Why does everyone unquestioningly believe in climate change?

Question

when there are as many arguments against as there are for (and a lot of the arguments for have to keep changing their reasearch data to prove anything)

Answer 1

it doesn't even matter if it's true or not, anyway.

the earth is our ONLY PLANET, so until we find another and a way of moving to it we should take care of the one we have now. it actually kinda mad me upset because people really weren't concerned about the polar regions until we were told they're already melting at an uncontrollable rate. people should be concerned about the planet as is.

Answer 2

I have my doubts, hence not everyone unquestioningly believes.

Answer 3

actually we are understanding nature more

and we are admittingg our mistake now

trying to improve

Answer 4

Aside from climate change being felt over the world,i believe that media is a big part of the sudden belief in climate change.And the growing number of environment enthusiasts, it's kinda hard not to be part of it.And by now, i probably think that climate change IS on going.In my opinion, this will probably be the down fall of man.Cheers!;)

Answer 5

Those who don't believe in climate change are those who are afraid to admit that it is being caused by the human race as they know this will in turn lead to alterations to the current way of life. it will lead to reductions of CO2 levels meaning the introduction of "polluter pays" ideas i.e. those who cause it will suffer the biggest consequences in an economical sense . This is why George Bush tries to say he doesn't believe it is happening as America is the biggest CO2 distributor and so therefore would suffer the greatest consequences

Answer 6

the problem is, people are trying to provee who's right and who's wrong whether the evidences are correct or incorrect.

AND CLIMATE CHANGE is ONLY a product or a more damaging effect of the ones which are directly have impacts like deforestation, overfishing etc. and THEY ARE ALL CONNECTED TO EACH OTHER IN ONE WAY OR TWO.  

Answer 7

There is overwhelming evidence in the scientific literature that climate change is (1) real, (2) at least partially due to the activity of human, and (3) already changing physical and biological systems.

The arguments against climate change are weak, politically bias, and not based on scientific evidence.

----

The ideas of belief is just ridiculous.  The scientific facts are overwhelming, so its more of whether or not you accept the facts.

Answer 8

Not everyone unquestioningly believes in it.

It is interesting how you can look up and down a post like his and see who gets a thumbs up and who gets a thumbs down, and it is based on whatever opinion happens to be most common rather than on whether the information seems reasonable or not.

Someone up there said "what's the harm, even if it's not true?"  Well, the harm is that the majority (which currently believes global warming is happening, and is human caused) is attempting to prevent the minority from freely debating.  I believe that global warming  is happening and is human caused, but we must allow for free speech and free debate.  Also, if we are not causing global warming but take actions to prevent it, we will impose huge costs on our economies for no gain.

My biggest concern is that "global warming" is drawing all the attention, and people are ignoring the problem of plain-old pollution.  Now, every column about being "environmentally friendly" deals with CO2 emissions, rather than the oil that leaks out of our cars and gets into our groundwater and food supply.  People think that if they buy a "carbon offset" and have a tree planted, they have "gone green," at the same time that they throw a heavy-metal laden cell phone in the trash and don't take proper care of their car to prevent fluid loss.

This blog entry (http://www.oneofusiswrong.com/index.php?... covers the negative aspects of how the global warming debate is being handled, especially the way it is being handled by those of us (like me) who tend to believe that the globe is warming, and humans may be playing a role in it.

Answer 9

Not "everyone" DOES believe in climate change: you yourself are proof of this.

Also, as the Union of Concerned Scientists has pointed out, there are at least 43 different organizations that have questioned the reality and/or important of climate change that have received big donations from Exxon-Mobil.  

So in the offices of Exxon-Mobil, anyway, and in the offices of several dozen groups that have received Exxon-Mobil money, there are clearly a number of people who question the mainstream position on climate.

As science writer Jeff Goodell points out in his book BIG COAL, there are some big American coal companies, coal-burning electric utilities (eg The Southern Company in Georgia) and coal-industry trade associations that are attacking the notion of CO2-induced climate change as well.

However, there are admittedly a number of individuals and organizations who continue to insist that the mainstream position on climate science is the right one, despite the doubts of skeptics funded by the fossil fuel companies.  

Here's a partial list of some organizations that have signed on to the mainstream position, probably to your displeasure:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Environmental Protection Agency

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies

American Geophysical Union

American Institute of Physics

National Center for Atmospheric Research

American Meteorological Society

State of the Canadian Cryosphere

The Royal Society of the UK

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

Academies of Science from 19 countries

The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:

Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)

Royal Society of Canada

Chinese Academy of Sciences

Academie 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)

Additionally, the Academies of Science from another 8 countries (as well as several countries from the first list) also signed a joint statement endorsing the IPCC consensus:

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

Answer 10

Most of the arguments against climate change say that we "Simply don't understand climate enough."  Or they say that the computer simulations are not complex enough to tell us about the climate.  These are not very good arguments.  

The idea is that we should use whatever information and knowledge we do have, even if it is not perfect.  It's the best we can do.  Better arguments against the belief in climate change would involve data that we do have, rather than the accusation that we don't have enough data.

Answer 11

I've seen the data, checked it out backwards, upside down and sideways, and looked at it dead on.  I was still hanging onto the fence, beginning to believe earnestly when I discovered the vast amount of research being done at the university level.  I was impressed and humbled, as these institutions weren't waiting around sitting on their thumbs, they were accumulating evidence that would help to corroborate the phenomenon, and, eventually, provide solutions.

Soon in my research I stumbled upon website after website provided by governments, think tanks, non-profits, corporations.  It was almost a different world, as at that time the media was sniffing around on the issue, but hadn't embraced it.  What I found was overwhelming.  I began to collect sites so I could sort them out.  The file, which includes labels as to who and what a site is, is some 25 pages long at this point.  Granted, it contains a lot of peripheral sites, such as sites on sustainability and renewable energy.  But the information is out there, and I studied it.  I questioned a lot of what I read.  

A healthy level of skepticism is fine.  Flat-out denial just means you're stubborn, or you don't have the chops to see the research through.  I'm not a scientist, I'm a naturalist, and a writer, so I wasn't just looking for how GCC is impacting humans.  I wanted the big picture, and, a year and some later, I have it.  Lots of questions, lots of answers in between.

Answer 12

It should be unquestioningly believed in.  Skepticism is good for science.  However, when one takes body of scientific evidence and comes to the wrong conclusion based on political preconceptions, that is bad for science.

Answer 13

Not everyone believes in "global warming", and your question has a very simple answer.

"Global Warming" is not a scientific question, but it is a political dogma.  This is why you will find those who have faith that "Global Warming" is real are liberals, while those who see "global warming" to be a hoax are independent thinkers.

It's just the mindset of people who are dependent to follow others rather than for thinking themselves.

Answer 14

Everyone?    Must be new to this board.     Hardly anyone on here believes it.

Answer 15

People are hard wired for belief.  It's why religion and superstition lasts in the face of evidence to the contrary of its ideas.  People want to believe in something bigger than themselves.  Global Warming provides that belief.  

People are also hard wired for a father figure.  It takes a strong personality around which people can rally to make an idea a belief.  Be it Christ, Mohammed, Hitler, Adam Smith, Marx, or Gore, somebody has to be the catalyst.  

And people are hard wired for a capacity, even a need, for a sense of horror.  This was vital to our survival.  Nature is full of horrors.  So scary movies and scary political ideas draw us.

People often confuse science with a belief in science.  Science is all about skepticism.  As geology became a science and the idea that physical laws today are the same as they were a long time ago, the idea of a great flood was rejected.  Even when scientists found evidence of massive floods, such as the Channeled Scab Lands, the idea was rejected because it clashed with existing orthodoxy.

Most people don't engage in critical reasoning.  That Global Warming is actually a complex of ideas each of which should be judged on its own merits is not fully examined.  Most take it as an all or nothing proposition rather than parsing it to understand it.

The ideas proposed by global warming advocates are still not fully understood , and the prescriptions so rash, a healthy skepticism is a must.

Answer 16

B'coz it is happening.Can you say that the climate in any place is the same as say 5-6 years back?We have had flood due to heavy rains,tornadoes and tsunamis.You may say that weather patterns change on a regular basis but that would be over maybe a period of around a decade.this sort of change is unprecedented.

Answer 17

the evidence hugely outweighs the septics

Answer 18

Reasonably well educated people do not belive in the fraud of so called global warming, only those with a religious pr political agenda maintain the belief anymore. Humans have had absolutely nothing to with any warming period and there has been no warming for over 70 years now. Well up until 1934-40 it was real and it happened because of the end of a period of low sun spot activity and the beginning of a more active period of solar output. It has been well proven now through current and historical records that the overall temperature average or climate of the earth is closely tied to the sun spot activity that directly affects the earth’s climate. Real global warming is a natural cosmic event, the global warming currently in the public spotlight is a fictional event brought about for political and economic gains by an elite group of con men.

The whole concept that this global warming scam is built on comes from a mistake in logic by a chemist back in the late 1800s when things started warming up at the end of the 2nd half of the little ice age. His arguments were adopted by a group of anti-industrial/anti-technology religious fanatics known as Luddites after their prophet to try and return society to its grander days in the early medieval period when nobility meant something. Oh yes, just like today the major adherents of this cult were the 2nd and 3rd sons of the minor nobility and in some cases the 1st sons who had squandered their inheritances on life style instead of productivity.

The anti Co2 cult was enhanced again when the argument was taken up during the late 20s when warming became noticeable and a industrial chemical firm had come up with a fluorocarbon instead of an oxycarbon refrigerant they claimed was not only superior to Co2 as a refrigerant it also would end the threat of global warming caused by Co2. This refrigerant was known as Freon and was in recent years banned because it was suspected of damaging the ozone layer. Now because of the low performance of other substituted refrigerants Co2 is making a huge comeback in the refrigeration industry, especially in newer auto air-conditioning systems that are more compact and efficient.

In the 1970s the Co2 equals warming theory was once again brought forward by a couple of low end climate scientists Mann/Hansen to first warn of the immanent plunge into a new and disastrous ice age because of the production of Co2 by vehicles and industry. This even though it got major media news play flopped like a lead balloon. Then they got involved with a shyster politician that had major oil company connections dating back to his fathers involvement with them who said clearly people are not afraid of cold but they are of heat.

So this politician writes a disaster is coming because of the warming that will be caused by the huge amounts of Co2 the world is pumping into the air. Mann/Hansen then revised their materials to forecast ever rising temperatures in sync with rising Co2 levels. Well when they checked closely they found that world temperatures had no relationship with Co2 levels and instead followed sun spot activity so they had to alter world temperature records to reflect a temperature increase matching the Co2 increase. This worked fine up through 2000 because things were warming up after the 70s cool period at that time. Then after 2000 temps leveled off and started dropping a little and their altered temperature curve that matched the increasing Co2 curve began to radically separate from reality even more than it had from the beginning of the scam when they had interjected an artificial .5C jump that placed the current 1998 peak well above 1934 when it was actually about .1C below 1934. This radical difference between actual recorded temperatures and reported ones quoted by Mann/Hansen is what brought about NASA action to review national and international records. The US national records have been repaired and now reflect the fact that global warming is more than a myth, it is an outright con game played for profit at the highest political and economic levels.