Why many still believe that Global Warming is a hoax?

Question

i just don't understand people why they don't believe in that phenomenon. many scientific organizations have proven that GW is real. here are some organizations.

* National Academy of Sciences (NAS)

* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

* NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)

* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

* The Royal Society of the UK (RS)

* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

* Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

do people think logically? why do they believe in conspiracies that global warming is a hoax were in fact, many scientific organizations have proven it. why do people believe conspiracies? we must believe now and help reduce effects of global warming

Answer 1

It's still a hoax, and all those agencies you cite are reaping the benefits of Global Warming dollars.

Check out the other side... there are equally as many other references that will clearly tell you that global warming diminished in the late 1990's, and has now reversed.

The Earth does not need its inhabitants to regulate its environment.

Answer 2

A great many people think they are thinking when

they are really rearranging their prejudices." William James

Have you noticed that the skeptics usually don't really have anything to say, other than it's a hoax, it's a scam, it's a communist conspiracy or you know the rap.

Where's the science?

Pretty much all the skeptic scientists have been shown to be shills for the Heartland Institute and other propaganda machines of the oil industry and similar interests.

Skeptic Argument:

"Global warming is a hoax perpetrated by environmental extremists and liberals who want an excuse for more big government (and/or world government via the U.N.).

"This is a common line, regardless of how ridiculous it is, so it should not go unanswered."

Answer:

"Here is a list of organizations that accept anthropogenic global warming as real and scientifically well-supported:"

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS):

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):

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

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1...

National Academy of Sciences (NAS):

http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_...

State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) -

http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost...

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):

http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html

The Royal Society of the UK (RS) -

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=31...

American Geophysical Union (AGU):

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climat...

American Meteorological Society (AMS):

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatecha...

American Institute of Physics (AIP):

http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html

National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR):

http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html

American Meteorological Society (AMS):

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacade...

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS): http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.htm...

"Every major scientific institution dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions. In addition to that list, see also this joint statement (PDF) that specifically and unequivocally endorses the work and conclusions of the IPCC Third Assessment report. The statement was issued by:"

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)

You can also read this statement [PDF], which includes all the above signatories plus the following:

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

"But if scientists are too liberal and politicians too unreliable, perhaps you find the opinion of key industry representatives more convincing: "

"BP, the largest oil company in the UK and one of the largest in the world, has this opinion:

There is an increasing consensus that climate change is linked to the consumption of carbon based fuels and that action is required now to avoid further increases in carbon emissions as the global demand for energy increases. "

"Shell Oil (yes, as in oil, the fossil fuel) says:

Shell shares the widespread concern that the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities is leading to changes in the global climate. "

"Eighteen CEOs of Canada's largest corporations had this to say in an open letter to the Prime Minister of Canada:

Our organizations accept that a strong response is required to the strengthening evidence in the scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We accept the IPCC consensus that climate change raises the risk of severe consequences for human health and security and the environment. We note that Canada is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. "

"Have the environazis seized the reigns of industrial power, in addition to infiltrating the U.N., the science academies of every developed nation, and the top research institutes of North America? That just doesn't seem very likely."

"Scientific skepticism is a healthy thing. Scientists

should always challenge themselves to expand their knowledge, improve their understanding and refine their theories. Yet this isn't what happens in global warming skepticism. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and yet eagerly, even blindly embrace any argument, op-ed piece, blog, study or 15 year old that refutes AGW"

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

"Honest skeptics persist at trying to convince their

colleagues of alternative conclusions, and they do it by submitting their manuscripts for publication. If they do not get published, then it is because their data, their arguments, their assumptions, and their

conclusions did not stand up to careful scrutiny, not because reviewers were predisposed to a different opinion. Oh sure, some reviewers can be opinionated and have their own political ax to grind, but with persistence, you can find enough fair academics to get any legitimate conclusion published. My years as a journal editor, as a reviewer, and as an author of scientific articles validates my position that most academics will give a valid minority position a fair evaluation."

http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v06/n08/...

"Global warming, as a scientific issue, remains

unresolved, and because of its complexity much

conflicting and marginal data exists. But the

conclusions reached by Robinson et al., upon which The Wall Street Journal news item was based, in my opinion and that of my class, cannot stand the scrutiny of objective peer-review. Our judgement notwithstanding, The Wall Street Journal presented an unpublished manuscript as actual science to a gullible business world. Giving support and credence to an unpublished manuscript certainly reflects poorly on

The Wall Street Journal and its standards of

reporting and objectivity. We know The Wall Street Journal’s science reporting cannot be trusted if they don't know the difference between opinion and science, or worse, if they do know the difference, then they're just dishonest."

http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v06/n08/...

"And please don't forget that anthropogenic global warming has been for a century the underdog theory, it is only very recently that the mountains of research have dragged a generally conservative scientific community inexorably to a very unpleasant conclusion"

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10...

And be sure to read this:

http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v06/n08/...

Debunking of Wall St Journal claim in article

and this

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/0... The Cold Truth about Global Warming by Joseph Romm

Where you will learn that John Coleman is no authority on climate change, regardless of the fact that he founded the weather channel.

From real climate.org

"According to ExxonSecrets.org, the Heartland Institute describes itself as “the marketing arm of the free-market movement” and has received $791,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998. The Heartland Institute is in no way a scientific organization. It is a propaganda mill. "

"The success of the fossil fuel industry’s multi-million dollar, years long campaign of propaganda to disinform the American public about the reality of global warming cannot be underestimated. They successfully delayed serious action to reduce emissions (and the consumption of their products) by ten or twenty years at least. With ExxonMobil alone reaping annual profit approaching 40 billion dollars, the payoff for the paltry millions they’ve paid outfits like Heartland has been huge.

But not as huge as the cost of that lost time will be to all of us."

{The "global warming is a hoax" believers don't understand the difference between informed opinion, uninformed opinion, misinformed opinion and totally ignorant opinions}  from comments at  gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/11/236...

posted by LeeAnnG

Answer 3

There's an expression 'ignorance is bliss'. This is my main explanation for why people are in denial about AGW. They're just afraid. Afraid somebody will tell them they can't drive their Hummer anymore. Afraid the government will enact a carbon tax. Afraid they'll have to take some responsibility for their environmental impact.

Rather than face this fear, they go into denial. They ignore the science, stick their fingers in their ears and yell 'I can't hear you la la la la!'. It's a very comfortable feeling pretending that nothing is wrong with the world.

Of course the problem with denial is that it doesn't make the problem go away. As the planet continues to warm, the consequences will simply get worse and worse. Ignoring them may make people feel better in the short-term, but they'll pay for their denial in the long run.

Answer 4

What?!

I didn't realize there were people who actually think GW is a hoax! That's crazy! Especially if these nay-sayers are older people. I'm in my 30's and even I've seen the affects of GW in my lifetime. You don't need to convince me!

Answer 5

The creator of The Weather Channel doesn't believe in global warming, so I trust him.

And no, people don't think logically.

Answer 6

Why do you // \\ must you assume people use logic in their day to day thinking?  If history has taught anything is that those who are rich & powerful can generally rise above petty annoyances such as floods & major climatic woes.  Katrina is one of my favorite examples.  Newscasters, the bulk of them from well to do if not wealthy backgrounds, coddled through childhood given a god education spewed out into a job with even the garbage pay at $35,000 a Year were clearly puzzled why the bulk of the people in New Orleans did not simply gas up their SUVs and drive a few hundred miles to safety, check into a nice hotel and sit quiet for however many months it took for their homes to be cleaned up or rebuilt or whatever!!

In other words Global Warming is not an equal opportunity player and for those that can afford to play it is a great opportunity.  Tropical Beach Front Property in the Barring Straits, what a Golden Opportunity for Building Sky Scraping Condos.  Today Dubai is the Wonder City of the Ages but in Twenty Five Years with all of North Alaska open to wild cat drilling for gas & oil look for Barrow Alaska to be the new hip hop hot city.

So throw logic aside and go along for the ride - - -

Peace . . . // -- -- --- O . v . O -- -- -- -- \\

Answer 7

Actually the number of people in the U.S. who believe that global warming isn't happening is quite low, about 6% (the percentage who believe it's a hoax would be some subset of those people).

"Seven out of ten Americans surveyed believe that global warming is probably happening. Seventy-one percent say that global warming is probably happening, 6 percent believe it is probably not happening, and 23 percent are unsure. This includes an 81-to-3 percent margin among Democrats, a 75-to-4 percent margin among independents, and a 56-to-13 percent margin among Republicans."

http://www.fightglobalwarming.com/conten...

For the few who deny, it's a mental response to the threat:

"In general, it must be observed, the world is full of terrifying possibilities that we could never completely comprehend (1998). Denial is the refusal to believe or accept the reality that certain events have happened, are happening, or will happen. To accept the reality would bring emotional pain, so the events are denied. Related to denial is the defense called minimizing. Events are accepted, but only in a watered down version."

"There are several defining characteristics that identify the possibility that a patient may be in denial. Some examples include pretending something does not exist when in reality it does. Being willing to admit there is a problem, but unwilling to see the severity of it. Seeing the problem as being caused by something or someone else. The behavior is not denied, but its cause is someone else's responsibility. Offering excuses, alibis, justifications, and other explanations for behavior. Dealing with the problem on a general level; avoiding personal and emotional awareness of the situations or conditions. Changing the subject to avoid threatening topics. Becoming angry and irritable when reference is made to the condition. These defining characteristics help to avoid the issue at hand (Whitfield, 1994). "

"In order to be a normal functional being, you must deny death. Healthy denial allows you to keep going. It's when it interferes with survival that it seems to cause a problem. What we call denial is often really suppression, which is “the conscious or semiconscious decision to avoid attending to the conflict” (Davidhizar, Poole, Giger, & Henderson, 1998). "

http://www.wowessays.com/dbase/ae5/csk11...

Answer 8

they deny such issues because they want to confuse others. why believe them? it is obvious they are arguing with no evidence

Answer 9

Honestly, it seems the earth goes through climate changes, whether man is involved or not. what caused the ice age? No human interference to date. Its gaia doing her thing.

Answer 10

probably because every one of those organizations have also changed their minds and said it is not as bad as they originally said.    Also because even the so-called experts have admitted to exaggerating their reports to make it look worse than it is

Answer 11

Considering that a lot of those organizations also claimed global cooling back in the 70's... there is a room for doubt.  Its also interesting that a lot climatoligst and meterologists don't buy it, but biologists do see it.

Also, not every model of GW is bad.  Al Gore's model shows the end of the world, but a lot of other models actually have improvements.  There was even one model a couple months ago that claimed there could another ice age.... again.  Some models even show the availability of more farmland becoming available due to global warming that could be a big boon to mankind.

Most of us "nay-sayers" don't deny global warming, we just don't buy that it is only caused by man conspiracy.  Expecially when 1) its happened in the past, 2) nobody can seem to decided what the official operating temperature of the Earth is supposed to be, and 3) its happeneing on other planets that don't have man on them.

Answer 12

Unfortunately YES

you will see from your answers

there are many ignorant people out there

And they are arguing over points of  academic data

as if that changes anything.

And authoritarian forces are taking advantage of the phenomena

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

HOW EVER

There is a series that you can download easy ,called

bbc,Planet earth by David Attenborough.

About 15 ---700mb videos

this is a photographic team that has been filming Nature stories all over the world ,for a very long time .

In 3 of the episodes called --the future--saving species

the future--living together ,ice worlds ,

they compare films they made before of places and species to what they are filming now in the same places.

Many scientists give  commentaries as well .

And whole migrations of animals involving millions have disappeared in only 5  years in the tundras

Ice sheets,glaziers have gone

They say about half of the worlds forests have gone in the last 300 years

Half of the natural  habitats,like wetlands , ice fields tundras,mountain vegetation and rain forests . in the last 50 years,and all of the inhabitants with it

CHECK THE CLOCK FOR THE SPEED

http://www.poodwaddle.com/worldclock.swf



Global warming is a component in a group of destructive forces at work ,it is not the only one , but  other factors which we are responsible for ,are rapidly making it the worst .

We are now  witnessing a mass   Extinction of animals and plants of Biblical proportions,equal since the disappearance of the dinosaurs.

Who cares what it is called or WHY EXACTLY  IT IS HAPPENING ,What or who is to blame

If we want to save ourselves as a specie ,we have to address

the problems

Apparently we can correct most of the destructive factors

with disciplines ,changes of attitude and habits.

A diminishing of the world population is essential especially in poor and densely populated areas.

a world sustainable number BASED ON BIO RESOURCES  is 3 billion,

And so far we can still do it voluntary,There may come a time when the governments will take harsh actions .

If they are not already doing this underground

Answer 13

We are running out of nukes! Follow me now, and i will make sure every kid gets a nuke for christmas!

don't believe everything you hear, who's the biggest GW nut? Al Gore.

How does he propose we deal with it? Give him money to plant a freakin tree. Sorry I don't buy it.

Answer 14

You have to remember the hijacking that occured with the language.

Virtually every reputable scientist on the planet agrees thta the Earth is undergoing climate change on a regular basis. There is no basis for arguing that fact as there are historical records detailing major climate changes just over the last few millenia.

Where the hijacking occured is that the phrase "man-made' is inserted into the title. There is massive disagreement on that.

Unfortunately there are far too many that weren't paying attention.

Climate change is real and factual and a natural part of the Earth since the rocks first cooled. "Man-made" global warming ... or now it's cooling since the models are failing once again.... is a scam. It has been foisted on us by the same class that wants to strip the US of its economic might. That is why the Democrats, third world and the Soviet Union are such proponents of the plan ... the Chinese know better and teh Brazilians aren't about to cut off their own hands. Now we are learning that India has become one of the planet's gretest polluters and wants to back out of the whole argument.

Answer 15

ITS OBVIOUS.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vosto...

This is from ice cores in antarctica. CLEARLY, you can see we went from 180 ppm/8*C below modern temps in the depth of the last ice age, to 280 ppm/current temperatures.

But recent co2 readings place us at 380 ppm, yet the temperatures have not risen to 8*C above modern temperatures. Why not?

Why did the increase from 180 ppm to 280 cause a 8*C increase in temps while an increase from 280 to 380 ppm caused a .6*C increase?

James hansen, one of the biggest advocates of AGW said the changes in earths orbit are very insignificant, and cause virtually none of the temperature variations/ice ages. He claimed co2 was the driver when it comes to ice ages. Why cant james hansen tell us why temperatures have stopped increasing (relative to the ice age) while co2 continues to skyrocket?

Answer 16

I don't know, I believe it is real.  Earlier today I almost got into an argument with my bf about it, he thinks it is a hoax, and he's the "smart" one.  Lol.