Why so many still don't believe the global warming is a fact

Question

it reminds me of the cigarette - for the longest time people deny it is harmful. only after so many years and many more people were killed. i am sure just like the tobacco company, this time is the oil companies behind the global warming denial.

why we never learn?

Answer 1

You really don't have a clue do you your comparisons like many before you are a stretch to say the least.  

Answer 2

Ignorance of the natural cycles the Earth goes through probably has a lot to do with those think global warming is natural (since they imagine a natural cycle that doesn't exist).

There is some evidence that the claims that we may have to sacrifice might have something to do with it for some people (ironically enough the anti-nuke kooks may have created some of the global warming denialists).

Answer 3

Maybe because there is statistical data backing up the tobacco/cancer link. There is no data backing up CO2/temp (unless you mean temp rises and CO2 follows).

Answer 4

If Global Warming is a fact why were they talking about global COOLING before?

Answer 5

Why we never learn?

Because humans as we are, tend to do the same mistakes over and over and over.

Answer 6

It's basically for economic reasons.  If people admit it's true, they'll have to do something about it, which costs $$$.

Answer 7

The reason why many people do not believe it is because they did their own research, to get beyond the lies Gore has millions of gullible people believing. It is surely true that many people on both sides of the argument are forming an opinion without doing any critical research on their own. Seeing Gore's movie or reading his book does not constitute research by the way. Its not research unless the information is coming from expert scientists.

I have read the scientific sources on both sides so I could have an intelligent, fact based opinion. At this point those who don't believe AGW is a proven "fact" have VERY good reasons for that belief.

If you doubt what I'm saying, why don't you read the following books?

After you do, then you too can have an informed opinion. If you don't read them you are just another follower of the crowd, like most people.

Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming

by Patrick J. Michaels

Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming convincingly demonstrates the remarkable differences between what we commonly read about global warming and what is really happening. Nine chapters describe major problems with computer simulations of future climate that are the basis for wrenching policies being proposed by world leaders. Anyone who reads this book will come away with a new appreciation of the complexity of the climate issue and will question the need for expensive policies that are likely to have little or no detectable effect on the planet's temperature.

The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so

by Lawrence Solomon

Is The "Scientific Consensus" on Global Warming a Myth? Yes, says internationally renowned environmentalist author Lawrence Solomon who highlights the brave scientists--all leaders in their fields-- who dispute the conventional wisdom of climate change alarmists (despite the threat to their careers). Al Gore and his media allies claim the only scientists who dispute the alarmist view on global warming are corrupt crackpots and "deniers", comparable to neo-n***s who deny the Holocaust.

Solomon calmly and methodically debunks Gore's outrageous charges, showing in on 'headline' case after another that the scientists who dispute Gore's doomsday scenarios have far more credibility than those who support Gore's theories. These men who expose Gore's claims as absurd hold top positions at the most prestigious scientific institutes in the world. Their work is cited and acclaimed throughout the scientific community. No wonder Gore and his allies want to pretend they don't exist.

This is the one book that PROVES the science is NOT settled. The scientists profiled are too eminent and their research too devastating to allow simplistic views of global warming--like Al Gore's--to survive.

Al Gore says any scientist who disagrees with him on Global Warming is a kook, or a crook. Guess he never met these guys

Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences--demolishes the famous "hockey stick" graph that launched the global warming panic.

Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says "it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now."

Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--says "no major scientist with any long record in this field" accepts Al Gore's claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.

Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--states "there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies" used for global warming forecasts.

Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says "there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity."

Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."

Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo--says "most leading geologists" know the U.N.'s views "of Earth processes are implausible."

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."

Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: "The cause of this climate change is unknown."

Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project says "the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time "preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent."

Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun's state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: "The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."

Prof. Freeman Dyson--one of the world's most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are "full of fudge factors" and "do not begin to describe the real world."

Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun's behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2. And many more, all in Lawrence Solomon's devastating new book, The Deniers

Answer 8

Because it means that Al Gore is right, and many conservative minded people can't stand that.

Answer 9

It is nothing like the tobacco.  It was nothing like flat earth.  It was nothing like the Holocaust.  Leftist love to throw those things out pretending that they are somehow smarter than the rest of us.  Your hatred of oil companies as well as other corporations is as plain as your ignorance of the issues involved.  Why don't you simply admit that it isn't global warming you are worried about, it is freedom, prosperity, and free markets.    

Answer 10

Because it isn't a FACT. "Rapid" "destructive" "Global Warming" is a myth promulgated, perpetrated and supported by Loonies, Luddites and hippies who would have us all live in tents without sanitation, medicine, light, warmth or decent food. Their idiotic bucolic idyll is the fairy-story life that they believe we should all be living ny ridding ourselves of ALL technology.

It is illogical, emotional claptrap.

Unfortunately, as the climate of the world changes ever so slowly, these idiots can make all the predictions they like for fifty years hence...and then, when it doesn't occur, they won't be here to answer their critics, or someone carrying on their "legacy" will simply push it out another fifty years...

The sky is NOT falling people!!!

Answer 11

Global warming is the increase in the average measured temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century, and its projected continuation.

The average global air temperature near the Earth's surface increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the 100 years ending in 2005.[1] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas concentrations"[1] via an enhanced greenhouse effect. Natural phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950 and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward.[2][3]

These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science,[4] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.[5][6][7] While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some findings of the IPCC,[8] the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions.[9][10]

Climate model projections summarized by the IPCC indicate that average global surface temperature will likely rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the twenty-first century.[1] This range of values results from the use of differing scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions as well as models with differing climate sensitivity. Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, warming and sea level rise are expected to continue for more than a thousand years even if greenhouse gas levels are stabilized. The delay in reaching equilibrium is a result of the large heat capacity of the oceans.[1]

Increasing global temperature is expected to cause sea level to rise, an increase in the intensity of extreme weather events, and significant changes to the amount and pattern of precipitation. Other expected effects of global warming include changes in agricultural yields, modifications of trade routes, glacier retreat, species extinctions and increases in the ranges of disease vectors.

Remaining scientific uncertainties include the amount of warming expected in the future, and how warming and related changes will vary from region to region around the globe. Most national governments have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but there is ongoing political and public debate worldwide regarding what, if any, action should be taken to reduce or reverse future warming or to adapt to its expected consequences.

Answer 12

We do learn. We learned that in the 1970's, politicians and people with something to gain spouted Global Cooling propaganda to advance their agenda. We have learned that there has been no warming since 1998, an entire decade of no warming. We have learned that a warmer globe is actually good for people, unlike your tobacco analogy.

Think about it. Would humans and life be better off in a warm period or a cold period. As I recall the Medieval Warm Period allowed cultivation further north, allowing the Vikings to have crops in Greenland.

What did the Little Ice Age bring; bitter cold winters, cold summers, famine, bread riots, and a host of events that I would prefer not to see in my life time. Ummm, I wonder which was more habitable for life....

When you talk about global warming as a fact, you are stating a legitimate point. It is man-made global warming that people have a tough time coming to grips with. Can you factually state, man is the cause of the rising temperatures that we saw in the 20th century. Please show source.. If so, can you factually state, man is also the cause of the lack of temperature rise since 1998. Let's be fair to humans, shall we... Or can you factually state, humans can actually do something to prevent temperatures from rising or declining for that matter. If so, how? Stop using fossil fuels; well, that won't ensure us the temperatures won't fluctuate up or down. Let us take into account the devastating impact on global economies and development that a so called carbon tax or cap and trade would have.

Do we stop consuming meat because the more meat we eat the more cows that are harvested, which means the more methane that is released. Good luck with that one, and still unfounded. So what is it that we do? Stop volcanos from spewing carbon dioxide, Let's see your blueprint for that one.

Furthermore, is it really our place as humans to try and regulate mother nature. Don't you liberal-progressive-socialists have enough on your plate in trying to regulate all of humanity and our economies that enhance our standard of living. Honestly, you (the government) try to mess with controlling the economy and you make things worse. Look at the financial crisis and housing problems we are currently facing. Do you think it will be any different if you (the government) start trying to control the climate. I fear that your playing God and trying to control Mother Nature will only make things worse than if we do see a slight rise in global temperatures over a very, very, very brief span of time, geologically speaking.

On top of everything, you liberals and your hatred of Western Oil Companies only signifies your compassion for state-owned oil companies like; Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuala, and the likes. Good job you human, American, technological and economic advancement hating green freaks. When will you come back to reality, life is neither utopian nor terrible as you all like to think it is or it should be. When will you ever learn?

Answer 13

Maybe because global warming, and global cooling are part of a natural cycle. Tens of thousands of scientists are still arguing over this so called 'fact', why should we start bankrupting the economy to make a few loud mouthed shills richer than they already are? First ask the so called experts who have said for the last 10 years that the sun has nothing to do with our climate; 'why has the global temperature dropped 0.59c in the last year since the extended solar minimum began?!'

The debates not over, don't be a global warming sheep. Let the scientists chew it over another decade or so before we start burning money like it was carbon credits.

PS - don't even try the polar ice BS, this year has been the least melting in a century, better buy a thick winter coat, we're in for a real deep freeze this year.

Answer 14

Ah, so if you want to intimidate people into believing something you say, call them "deniers" and compare their skepticism with cigarette companies' opposition to public awareness of cancer and addiction risks.    Got it.

Answer 15

The short and simple answer is that they don't want to believe it.  It's just pure denial.

If humans are causing global warming by burning fossil fuels, that means we need to make some serious changes in the way we do things.  We'll need to transition away from burning oil and coal, away from gasoline powered cars and gas guzzling SUVs especially.  It may mean enacting a carbon tax, and many people are deathly afraid of taxes.

Instead of facing up to these consequences, some people simply go into denial, stick their heads in the sand, and pretend there's no problem.  It's a pretty common reaction.  Unfortunately, pretending the problem doesn't exist won't make it go away.

Answer 16

No the lie is from the liberals ,and I dont think U can understand it but the figureing of the average temp. is a farce... The thermometers were not caliborated so the data is garbage...  

Answer 17

I think that global warming is just natural. We have ad ice ages come when people thought that global warming was a threat. Each ice age melted and a new one started many years after. If global warming was this much of a problem then we would have never had a single ice age before.  

Answer 18

Funny - As "real" as "global warming" is, still no one can tell if it will be warmer or colder any time in the future.

Believers are just followers, like those who believed the Earth was at the center of the universe.

When we learn more about the climate, believers will discover how wrong they were.

Answer 19

Common-Sense - For instance using your weak cigarette analogy. Who with even the slightest degree of intelligence, would have thought that inhaling smoke into their lungs would be good for them. Wouldn't the coughing, eyes burning and watering, hacking up mucus been some kind of motivator to stimulate their common-sense to tell them this may not be the best thing to be doing. The smugness of proponents of global warming stimulate my common-sense, especially when they say things like "the science is settled." A useful analogy... Modern Climatology is what medicine was in the first century.

Answer 20

You have it backwards.  Maybe Global warming is, or not, a fact, but so is global cooling. Do you dispute the ice ages?

The deniers are those who follow the priests and politicians who have control of the masses as their intent by blaming man for all things bad. Bad crops, bad weather, disease. you name it. Think of how many people followed their leaders and believed public executions to the sun gods would purge the sins of man against nature.

Galileo's persecution for his denial: "The earth is not the center of the universe" is more to the point then cigarette smoking.

Answer 21

people never denied cigarettes were harmful the tobacco companies did.  as far as global warming  you probably bought a pet rock didnt you?  It is BS the hottest recorded time over the last 100yrs was in the early 1930s the artic ice cap has been steadily growing thicker every year for the last decade...but how can that be?..hmmmmm  if we are experiencing global warming i would think we would be getting warmer hence the term Global WARMING.    look it up and start doing some of your own research instead of swallowing and blindly believing the useless information that the media gives you  

Answer 22

Oh man, some of these answers just illustrates why you have to ask this question.. People are ignorant and arrogant, and believe that global warming is "cyclical" or whatever, because they are in denial, and dont wanna do some research for themselves. Evidence of Global warming and the serious impact it has on our environments and biodiversity is mounting, and yet people still believe we have nothing to do with it. This is because they didnt do proper research and are just too scared to get the truth. and the irony of the matter is, most countries around the world are willing to change their attitude towards global warming except for the States, who are on of the biggest contributors to Global warming, they are also, incidentally the people who are most in denial, because they are not willing to sacrifice theyre lavish lifestyles for the sake of everyone and everything else, SELFISHNESS  i tell you- thats the real reason

Answer 23

read these to find out http://www.livescience.com/environment/0...

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/sto...

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Mon...

Answer 24

I agree, a lot of my friends still deny that global warming is even possible for goodness sakes. None of the countries have been doing much about it, especially the United States who, by the way, is one of the biggest greenhouse gas emmitters.

Answer 25

When al gore parks his suv;s give his plane to charity and begins living in a dung hut I will belve in AGW. unitl then i keep living with electricity and running water thank you

Answer 26

I'm not in denial I just don't believe in it because I know it's not true. It's basically a scam for Al Gore to make his money out of. And a lot of people didn't like him from the beginning. Also there's evidence to global warming not happening. If anything global warming is just part of a cycle, but it's deffinetly not bad as what they're accusing it to be. I mean what people saw was only a documentary of what Al Gore made which didnt prove as much. One little video isn't going to cut it. They even deleted my poll on people believing in global warming on here. They know it's a scam! First they said it was getting hott now they're saying its getting colder. Like seriously come on there's so much more evidence!