1. Confirmation bias, and similar brain tricks. Our minds tend to reject "unfriendly" information, however valid; http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2011/0... discusses the matter at length.
2. Lack of scientific understanding. Climate science is kind of complex, and some aspects of it aren't very intuitive ("How can it be snowing, if there's global warming?" and so on). Some people disbelieve what they don't understand. (there's something of the same problem with evolution)
3. Flat-out lying, or at least trusting a lying source. I suspect at least some people who deny global warming are skewing (or even blatantly faking) information because reality does not match their political biases, and/or because they are trying to protect some income source or the like that could be threatened by action to stop AGW.
(and, just as a bonus, conservative vs liberal brains:
http://psychcentral.com/news/2011/04/11/... )
Because it has changed many times in the past, when we were not even around. Do you really think that if we all died overnight, suddenly the climate would be perfect? Earth's climate has run the gamut from glacier-covered ice ball to tropical paradise. Which condition is considered "normal"? Would you prefer global cooling to global warming? It has to be one or the other, because the climate never has, and never will, remain static--not even after humans are long gone. Instead of crying about it like little babies, we had better learn to adapt to the inevitable. But of course, that won't happen. It is easier to complain and rant and to waste money trying to change what can't be changed than it is to learn new ways of farming, building, and living.
Actually there is a lot of argument about whether humans do or even can cause climate change. That's what we're discussing here and now. One big volcanic eruption releases far more toxic gas than all the cars on the planet,
By the by, an asteroid ploughed into Siberia the other day and the effect was not a world catastrophe, just a local one. So how big would the one that supposedly wiped out the dinosaurs have had to have been?
There is an industrial complex within the United States that sponsors massive efforts to fight the climate change belief. They don't try to disprove it, they try to prove that it "might" not be true. Disproving climate change is really hard overall, but making the answer ambiguous is really easy. All you have to do is say that there isn't enough data or point out a few exceptions. Any environmental scientist can make a few hundred thousand bucks if he agrees to write a paper against climate change. It is very difficult for someone to determine which scientists are trustable when they're incapable of, let alone willing to, sift through data themselves.
Like this guy: http://www.tgdaily.com/general-science-b...
Note his source of funding, a charity which traces back to an oil and gas company. Its rather sad.
Edit: And just to address Kano there, the greenhouse effect is proven. Its a basic concept of physics. If there is more gas in the atmosphere, more heat is absorbed. That heat is from the sun. To imply those things are separate indicates that you have no understanding of how the process works (which is the problem at hand here).
Water vapor is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (definitely not a coolant). People sometimes say this as if it made the CO2 argument less valid. It does not. In fact it makes things considerably worse. As more CO2 goes into the air, it eventually sinks into the ocean. As more CO2 goes into the ocean, more water vapor goes into the air. As more water vapor goes into the air, more heat is retained in the atmosphere. More heat causes more evaporation, causes more water, causes more heat. It is a positive feedback loop.
It is not arrogant to think that we can manipulate the atmosphere by changing its chemical composition, given that we know we are changing its chemical composition. Nobody really thinks much about global cooling, but I would reckon warming is worse because the increased sea levels will displace people... That's bad...
LOL! How do you explain the same 1000s of changes in climate for 100s of millions of years before humans? Did humans cause the polar ice caps to melt and make antarctica a lush densely populated rain forest during the Eocene period 35 to 55 million years ago?
Check the temperature of the sun, that's where the correlation is. When the climate changes there, it changes here too.
If you can scare people, you can control them. Remember that.
Well to start with greenhouses work by preventing convection, leave the doors open and they are not that warm.
Our earth is warm because of the sun, residual heat in the earth's core, and radioactivity with some of the earths elements, out of all these the sun is the big (huge) factor, theoretically Co2 causes a minor greenhouse effect (not proven yet) but other effects like water vapor (god I hate american english 'vapour') are supposed to have multiplying factors but could have cooling effects.
During earth's history the world has gone from hot to cold (ice ages) many times and will carry-on doing so, it is a bit arrogant to think we puny man could have such a big effect.
Who says global warming is bad, I think it is infinitely preferable to global cooling.
Critical thinking.
It requires you gather all the information, and consider it using sound logic, i.e. no logical fallacies, such as the petito principii contained in the stem of your question.
Climate Realist has further demonstrated how the proponents of the anthropogenic climate change have lost their credibility with large segments of the public. He cannot (or will not) distinguish between a valid argument and an ad hominem. Nothing in my post addresses the attributes of the speaker, only the (lack of) strength of the argument used. If that is an ad hom, everything is an ad hom. It is all the more telling in that CR uses blatant ad hom arguments in almost every post ("denier" etc), including the one above. This is getting to be like Alice in Wonderland; all arguments that expose the poor logic used by warmists are ad hominem, while none of the attacks on character perpetrated by warmists against skeptics are.
With this twisted logic, they still expect to retain their credibility on scientific matters. This not rational.
Its exactly the same thought process that make people think evolution is not true , that the moon landing was faked , that HIV does not cause AIDS - its called denialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism
Al has enough money already.
Invest in the tooth fairy.
I mean thier is no argument that humans cause climate change. We release huge amounts of green house gases which trap heat in the atmosphere i mean how can you even argue that!
"Thier" are lots of well-"researched" reasons:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...
That's why they are called deniers.
I agree with Kano on one thing; I also hate spelling vapor, v-a-p-o-u-r, which looks like a word with three syllables. Spell checkers have not made the concept of simplified spelling obsolete. If we think that weird spelling of words is OK, because we no longer need to spell because we have spell checkers, then we are moving towards a world where we let computers do our thinking for us.
And as usual, Caliserv just posts his usual ad homs and no science.
tricky thing. look into onto yahoo. that can assist!
I am skeptical because of the corruption that has been discovered in the 'supporting data' touted by Warmers.
grape or lemon-lime, whatever it is keep drinking it
PLEASE ANSWER MINES PLEASE ILL ANSWER URS THEN I PROMISE <3
