For many the subject of global warming is more about politics than science, they accept or reject the issue because that’s the stance taken by their favoured politicians. Instead of conducting their own impartial research they prefer to be told what to think by someone else.
Almost all the arguments that are used by the skeptics originate from the propaganda campaign that was led by Exxon Mobil in the 1990’s and early 2000’s. Bogus scientists were paid to create bogus reports claiming that global warming wasn’t happening, or that it was entirely natural or that it was beneficial.
In 2006 Rex Tillerson the Chairman, President and CEO of Exxon publicly acknowledged and apologised for funding the lies and promised to stop doing so in the future, and to their credit that have more or less kept to their word.
Despite it now being on public record that the arguments opposing global warming are a bunch of lies, the advocates repeat them ad-infinitum, seemingly without any concern for the fact that they’re spreading lies.
In many cases the reasons for the ‘skepticism’ can be explained by the psychology of denial. In essence, some people are concerned with self-preservation and instinctively oppose anything that they perceive to be a threat to themselves. The denial defence also avoids the need to accept responsibility or admit to being a part of either the problem or the solution.
The denial mechanism works by constructing a mental filter that systematically rejects anything that contradicts a pre-conceived notion. As such, the science and reasoning behind global warming can be absolute, but such information simply doesn’t register with those in denial. It’s not hard to find startlingly obvious examples of this.
In the mid 1900’s the powerful tobacco industry mounted a vigorous campaign to undermine claims that smoking was harmful. They sought to discredit the scientists and doctors through a well orchestrated propaganda campaign and invested heavily in promoting the benefits of smoking. Many people fell for the lies and as a result millions of people have died and suffered as a result.
The anti global warming protagonists employ exactly the same techniques as the tobacco companies did. Hardly surprising given that two of most prominent skeptics were paid by tobacco industry to promote smoking (Prof Fred Singer paid by Phillip Morris Tobacco and Prof Frederick Sietz by R J Reynolds Tobacco). To this day Singer disputes the dangers of smoking, as did Seitz up to his death in 2008.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_S...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer
You need to be very careful about terminology. The warmists use the differences in terminology to their advantage and if you are not careful the pea has switched thimbles and you missed it.
For instance there is:
? Global Warming: This is where the earth's average temperature is increasing with no cause implied.
? Anthropogenic Global Warming: Whene the cause of the increase is man.
? Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming: Where man is causing it and it will be a catastrophe.
? Climate Change: Is any change in the climate. This has happened for ever. You need to watch the IPCC, though, because I think they define Climate Change as Anthropogenic Climate Change. So you migh think you are agreeing to something obvious but they infer that you are happy with the fac that it is necessarily man-made.
? Then there is the CO2 bit. Anthropogenic and CO2 are not different words for the same thing. Man can warm things without emitting more CO2 and only a quarter of the CO2 in the atmosphere is man-made.
I am going to assume that you meant catastrophic, man-made, CO2-based, global warming.
All the profit seems to be with the people who are promulgating "the myth": Big Green (the WWF alone has more income than all the so-called "dark money" that sceptics are alleged to get according to a recent paper), "sustainable energy" providers, electric car manufacturers, non-government agencies etc.
The reason this sceptic is sceptical is because he has yet to see any convincing evidence. So it may not be happening as described. It could be warming but it might not be man-made, for instance. Even if it was all due to man then it might not be catastrophic.
The warming everyone is talking about is in the last couple of millimetres of the chart below. Did the Minoans have lots of SUVs on Crete? Or did the Romans have too many hypocausts?
MONEY AND POWER IS THE MOTIVE !!!
MONEY AND POWER are almost always the MOTIVE of any political deception.
There are TRILLIONS and TRILLIONS of dollars to be made selling carbon credits and controlling businesses, Warmist driving this fraud are seeking all those types of powers.
Warmist have ALREADY been collecting BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars each year for 'global warming research' and this has been going on for MORE THAN 30 YEARS!!!
Watch these, the FRAUD is explained in detail by some of the world's leading experts:
The Great Global Warming Swindle
Because we have not been able to locate ANY empirical evidence to demonstrate that AGW is a fact. Note I state AGW versus Global Warming. Global warming was a fact for a while. For the past 17 years the trend has been flat to slightly cooling. Most are now predicting a cooling period lasting until at least 2030.
" Is there any kind of profit in creating such a myth?"
There is HUGE profit. Billions and billions have been spent in the form or research grants and subsidies to "green" industry.
"Why would some people deny the existence of global warming?"
Simply because it is getting cooler.
Skeptics have seen the corruption and fraud that is found with a relatively small number of so-called 'climate scientists' (search for 'climate gate emails'). This fraud has resulted in $Billions of taxpayer "research" grants given to scientists who will find 'proof' of Man's culpability in so-called 'global warming'..... Billions that sane, hard-working taxpayers are no longer willing to be robbed of. THAT, my friend is our motive.
Remember, there is NO credible, unmanipulated, scientific data that supports the notion of 'Catastrophic, Man-Caused, Global Warming, Cooling or Inbetweening.......NONE!
If climatologists like James Hansen or Michael Mann were more interested in becoming extremely wealthy than in the scientific method or basic scruples, all they would have to do would be to make a phone call the the Koch brothers or the Heartland Institute. And don't let anyone tell you that the denial industry is short of money. They could make James Hansen and Michael Mann billionaires and hardly notice it in their bottom lines.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/21/priv...
Well the professional deniers and think tanks involved have receive money from oil interests to oppose GW These people easily influenced the weak minded to think their way
If you present proof to these morons, the will claim the data
http://skepticalscience.com has a comprehensive list of denier myths and the trutn that debunks them was altered, it's a government conspiracy or some other BS argumant
The motive is to control how other people live their lives, pushing it in the direction of the green religion. Their is also a big money-making component.
TAXES! Global warming wants to TAX CO2 emissions without any recourse..
Why would some people deny the existence of global warming? Is there any kind of profit in creating such a myth?
I'm not saying it does or doesn't exist. I'm curious about what others have to say.
Ummm, yes.
When the country really addresses global warming, gasoline will cost more.
Those people are more worried about the price of gasoline today
than they are about the country that their children will inherit.
Pretty sad.
because everyone who says it is true like Al Gore has made millions profiting on it.
Conflict of interest. It's like the stock market. Al Gore pumps up his own stock.
explained in the book, merchants of doubt. This is similar to the tobacco and chemical industries denying damage.
some folks do not like government regulations, others are plain ignorant of science and like conspiracies. there are still some who deny the moon landings..
Some say we need to take care of Earth for the benefit of our children.
I say we need to take care of our children for the benefit of the Earth.
for none other than profit
