Some just want to not think of it but in reality I guess almost all people are aware of it and how it will affect lives. For the time being, maybe we could do our share in at least setting things right by starting to help our environment in our little ways like recycling and proper waste and chemical disposal at home.
Probley because Global Warming ended 11/28/2012. Mike
We aren't killing the Earth, just the ecosystems that we know and love, and not yet, until 50 or 100 years.
See Trevor's answer.
Because some people can't even begin to understand science.
The public is never given the facts ,they are given scripted extracts saying we are destroying the planet and these do-gooders make alot of money from peoples fears. How long have scientists been keeping an eye on these things, what about 150 years, like someone going out their house and saying 'oh not another day of rain' and writing it down on a note pad?ha! Listen this planet is ancient, were there scientists back then? No! Ther e is alot of money in scare mongering. They won't tell you that reports ordered are doctored to only include the 'bad information' . Ice melting? Well it may be but it is getting thicker beneath. see what i mean?
I'm sure chicken little was right.
Global warming “facts” are notoriously hard to come by. One of the few facts universally agreed upon is that the current average temperature of Earth is indeed rising at this time. According to most estimates, this increase in temperature amounts to about 0.4-0.8 °C (0.72-1.44 °F) over the last 100 years. Data regarding times before that is not only highly theoretical but very difficult to obtain with any accuracy. The very methods used to obtain historical temperature records are controversial, even among the most ardent supporters of the theory of human-caused climate change. The facts leading one to believe that humans are not responsible for the current change in temperature are as follows:
? Global temperature changes from past millennia, according to available data, were often severe and rapid, long before man supposedly had any impact at all. That is, the current climate change is not as unusual as some alarmists would like to believe.
? Recent recorded history mentions times of noticeable global warming and cooling, long before man had any ability to produce industrial emissions.
? Water vapor, not CO2, is the most influential greenhouse gas. It is difficult to determine what effect, if any, mankind has on worldwide water vapor levels.
? Given the small percentage of human-produced CO2, as compared to other greenhouse gases, human impact on global temperature may be as little as 1%.
? Global temperatures are known to be influenced by other, non-human-controlled factors, such as sunspot activity, orbital movement, volcanic activity, solar system effects, and so forth. CO2 emission is not the only plausible explanation for global warming.
? Ice Age temperature studies, although rough, frequently show temperatures changing before CO2 levels, not after. This calls into question the relationship between warming and carbon dioxide; in some cases, the data could easily be interpreted to indicate that warming caused an increase in carbon dioxide, rather than the reverse!
? Computer simulations used to “predict” or “demonstrate” global warming require the assumption of human causation, and even then are not typically repeatable or reliable. Current computer weather simulations are neither predictive nor repeatable.
? Most of the global temperature increase of the last 100 years occurred before most of the man-made CO2 was produced.
? In the 1970s, global temperatures had actually been dropping since 1945, and a “global cooling” concern became prominent, despite what is now dismissed as a lack of scientific support.
? The “consensus” claimed by most global warming theorists is not scientific proof; rather, it is a statement of majority opinion. Scientific majorities have been wrongly influenced by politics and other factors in the past. Such agreement is not to be taken lightly, but it is not the same thing as hard proof.
? This “consensus,” as with many other scientific theories, can be partially explained by growing hostility to those with differing viewpoints, making it less likely that a person without preconceived notions would take on the subject for research. The financial and political ramifications of the global warming debate are too serious to be ignored, though they should not be central to any discussion.
? The data being used to support anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming is typically based on small data sets, single samples, or measurements taken in completely different regions. This creates an uncertainty in the results that rarely gets the attention that alarmist conclusions do.
While the above list is not exhaustive, it does include several of the major points that raise doubts about mankind’s actual effect on global temperatures. While no one can deny that warming is occurring, “overwhelming evidence” of any objective type does not exist to support the idea that global warming is significantly influenced by human actions. There is plenty of vague, short-sighted, and misunderstood data that can be seen as proving “anthropogenic” global-warming theory. All too often, data used to blame humans for global warming is far less reliable than data used for other areas of study. It is a valid point of contention that the data used in these studies is frequently flawed, easily misinterpreted, and subject to preconception.
In regards to issues such as this, skepticism is not the same as disbelief. There are fragments of evidence to support both sides, and logical reasons to choose one interpretation over another. The question of anthropogenic global warming should not divide Christian believers from each other (Luke 11:17). Environmental issues are important, but they are not the most important questions facing mankind. Christians ought to treat our world with respect and good stewardship, but we should not allow politically driven hysteria to dominate our view of the environment. Our relationship with God is not dependent on our belief in human-caused global warming.
For further research on global warming, we recommend the following articles:
http://www.icr.org/article/3233/
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossi...
http://www.xtronics.com/reference/global...
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles...
http://www.whrc.org/carbon/images/Global...
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1...
Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/global-warmi...
some just don't want to believe, though it is true
You ought to listen to your dad. I don't know if he is an authority on science but global warming is all about politics and if you were honest you could read back your question/comments and see where you lump all sorts of things as science fact when they aren't. Your father has probably been around long enough to see the lies and distortions that come all the time from people who have an agenda, generally leftists who have a cause. After you have been around enough to see these shrill claims come and go you will learn some healthy skepticism.
Well from some of things you are stating in this question, you may be confusing what is fact from what is speculation and what is opinion.
For example, it is a fairly established fact that the world has warmed recently and man has had some effect. It is speculation as to how much effect man has had and is speculation as to how much more effect we will have and how that will effect the climate in the future (climate models are not facts).
Finally, based on the few facts we have and the boatload of speculation, it is purely opinion as to what to do about it.
To be frank, if you came to me and wanted to discuss this issue and lumped speculation and opinion into the fact category, I would also brush you off.
_______________________________________...
Edit@Trevor: >>>"We do in fact understand the mechanisms that cause the coming and going of ice ages..."
No we do not. We do know that ice ages correlate well with the Milankovitch cycles. The most dominant cycle is the 100k year insolation cycle which is the weakest. There are recent studies to investigate why the weakest Milankovitch cycle appears to be the most dominant but it's far from being fully understood.
Note as well that there are several problems with the explanations. First, the cycles are not all 100k years and vary from 95k-125k years. Second, the 100k cycle has only been dominant for past million years. Before that the 41k year was dominant.
It is apparent there are number of positive and negative feedbacks working on the start and end of ice ages. We have not yet identified these let alone their cause and effects.
>>>" Also, if it were down to natural cycles alone then Earth would be cooling at a comparatively significant rate.
You haven't given a reference time frame for this statement. If you look at millennial time scales and ice age cycles, then yes I would say the Earth should be cooling although that rate of cooling is up in the air as per the first part of this edit.
If you look at centennial time scales, I would say we don't know for sure since if we look at the past 5000 years there have been several warming periods.
If you look at decadal time scales, well then natural variability and noise could easily dominate as we have seen in the recent surface warming pause.
My point is that you seem pretty sure about what natural forcings would be doing without human inference. I have recently asked this question and have not received any convincing answers. At least nothing to give me the same confidence you seem to have.
So I argue with my dad all the time about global warming. I read him facts on how it s real, how people are killing the earth, and how we should use less energy. All he dose is brush me off. I just don't understand how he could care less about the world and at the same time not believe in facts. Any ideas?
Almost without exception, those that reject the theory of global warming don’t know enough about the subject to make an informed decision.
Instead of rationalising it for themselves and looking at all the available evidence so as to come to an informed decision, they are much more likely to reference biased blog sites and listen to their favoured politicians and journalists. This means they’re choosing to be exposed to only one side of the story and are perpetuating their own ignorance.
It’s no surprise therefore that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists accept that it’s real, these are the people who know most about the subject and are best placed to make an informed decision.
Equally unsurprising is the fact that not a single scientific organisation on Earth disputes that we’re affecting the climates.
With the greatest of respect, I strongly suspect that your dad doesn’t know enough about the subject to decide for himself if it’s real or not. Maybe he gets his information from notoriously biased sources such as Fox News and therefore only ever hears the version they present.
It’s not going to help matters if you refer to the people killing the Earth, this isn’t going to happen. It’s already warmed and will warm again in the future, this will cause problems for a lot of people, other people will benefit from a warmer climate.
Can I suggest that both you and your dad refer to credible sources of information – the scientific institutions such as the National Academy of Sciences and to academic establishments such as universities and research groups.
- - - - - - - - -
COMMENT: TO BRIAR
So you’re in my neck of the woods then, I live in the Dales although I spend a lot of time elsewhere, it’s always good to get back to the wonderful scenery and tranquillity.
If I can pick up on your point about climate change being a natural variation. We do in fact understand the mechanisms that cause the coming and going of ice ages, they’re cyclical and entirely predictable. There are several contributory factors and they relate to the way Earth moves in space and its relationship with the Sun.
These natural changes are incredibly slow, the cycle that causes ice-ages (strictly they’re glacials, ice-ages are something different) lasts for 95,000 years and the rate of warming and cooling is a tiny fraction of the rate at which Earth has warmed recently. Also, if it were down to natural cycles alone then Earth would be cooling at a comparatively significant rate.
"Mother Nature" kills "billions of times" more things on Earth than humans do. You've been caught up in the environmental propaganda movement that has flooded the news for the past few years.
I digress. We are part of nature.
First, if you are talking about "killing" the earth, then you are exaggerating the problem to the point of absurdity. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and will cause some warming. Over the last 100 years, there has been around 0.8 degrees (C) of warming with 0.6 likely caused by our CO2 emissions.
During the jurassic period and many other periods of Earth's history, the CO2 concentration has been much higher. The average temps of the earth have been about 10 degrees higher and about 4 degrees lower. These periods in Earth's history where the CO2 concentration was higher and the temps were higher were marked by more plant life than we currently have. This crap about destroying or killing our planet is just nonsense.
That being said, we are not certain as to the effects of all the CO2 emissions and should work to reduce our emissions.
But you do not need to convince people that the world is ending to get people to work at improvement.
Take recycle, reusing and reducing what you use. THese are all things that help the environment and save you money.
Driving a reliable and fuel-efficient car is better for the environment and saves you money. Solar power is going down in cost. Soon you will be able to make back you investment in solar power in about 8 years. After that time period, you get to enjoy free energy (actually a much reduced electricity bill).
Making sure your house is properly insulated saves money.
Small things like reducing your shower time, saves money.
There are many economic reasons to help the environment. Personally, I can't wait for electric cars to reduce in cost. Once they get to around $25K, I am buying one.
Now in this forum, I am what Hey Dook and others refers to as an evil denier. I simply have been given no reason to believe in catastrophic global warming. Global warming, yeah some, catastrophic? Not at all.
Why?
Does this warming cause hurricanes?: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/gw_...
Guess not.
Tornadoes?: http://www.ustornadoes.com/wp-content/up...
Guess not.
Crop loss?: http://sustainablog.org/files/2009/08/co...
Guess not.
Floods/droughts?: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/s...
Nope.
All the crap we hear where the earth is being destroyed by tornadoes, hurricanes, flood, droughts, etc. They are things that have always been occurring. Even still, I am environmentally-friendly. In fact, I am more environmentally-freindly then some of the warmers I met that show off their hybrid, while also having an F-350 in their driveway. Why am I? Not because I believe in some imaginary crisis, but because I believe I should leave the world better than I found it, and I like saving money.
Guess what? Saving money and leaving the earth better than we found it, is not just a political thing. So my advise is to change your strategy.
Trevor,
I disagree about your assumption of not having enough information to make an informed decision. One does not need much information to make the informed decision to reduce, recycle and reuse. As to an informed decision as to the amount of global warming and its effects, I would not say that the experts have enough information to make an informed decision. You are working with sparse surrogate data in your attempt to determine the amount of feedbacks for CO2. You know very well that when you have models predicting 10 degrees of rise in temps by 2100 and others 1 degree, that your level of certainty in no way equates to what one would call an informed decision. And honestly, I doubt you account for all of the uncertainty in those models.
What I can say is that 95% of the models are overestimating the current temperatures. So the current state of the science is overestimate. While the current state of science seems to be to overestimate slightly, what is coming out in the media is a disgusting overstatement. They are frequently reporting the top of the confidence intervals and claiming far more confidence than is justifiable.
there is no man made global warming. The earth's temperatures have moderated over the past 15 years. You are being deceived.
How old are you? I ask because temperatures have been flat for over 17 years according to some figures.
Why do you think it is warming if the temperature has not increased?
The site below has lots of temperature datasets you can look at and fit trend lines to.
A lack of faith in foreign cooperation. Absent any verifiable, enforceable global warming treaty, any unilateral moves by the United States would be pointless. After all, the left wants us to believe that global warming really is global and that fossil fuels burned in distant lands are every bit as harmful as they are when they are utilized here at home. I would love to see a poll that asks American voters if they think American tax dollars should be spent on global warming remedies in foreign lands. Of course, we all know the vast majority of Americans would say no. Some say the United States should lead by example, but does anybody believe that if we affirmatively harm our own economy, others will somehow think that is a noble sacrifice and follow suit? The very notion is ridiculous.-Washington Post
May be they don't realize the impact of it on their own life as well as on the life of future generation or they value only material world not the importance of nature.
WHy are there some people who don't believe in god?
Because the evidence presented is insufficient to sway there belief/disbelief.
But more likely because they are sick and tired of screaming evangelists trying to ram their beliefs down their throats and will burn in hell before they "give in".
Global climate variation is a natural phenomenon as old as the planet itself. We go into ice-ages, we come out of ice-ages. 30,000yrs ago the Yorkshire valley where I now sit and along which the Tour de France passed just 2 weeks ago, was under a glacier. What do you think stoneage man did so wrong to make that glacier melt to become the River Wharfe? Nothing! It is natural variation that we just don't fully understand yet.
no such thing as global warming
Because some people are f.ucktards
In some cases, it is because those who accept the conclusions of a century of science, endorsed by nearly all top scientists for decades, carelessly use the word "believe" instead of "accept".
You believe
"in magic in a young girl's heart"
"that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself"
"in life after love"
"the God Almighty, maker of heaven and earth"
"in love" itself (see below).
Science is something one accepts or denies, understands or does not understand, tells the truth about or does not tell the truth about. It does not depend in the slightest upon belief, never has, never will, never could.
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes.
Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warm...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...
http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoi...
http://nas-sites.org/climate-change/qand...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...
He's old
Quite a few people just don't care. They figure that sometime after they're dead some smart guy will fix everything.
A brief history lesson.
DDT is bad according to Rachel Carson's book A Silent Spring (can't believe I bought into that). (1967) DDT didn't kill people. It killed malaria carrying mosquitoes. 40+ million people have died of Malaria in Africa since that time. Thank you Rachel Carson for helping eliminate something that could have sent Malaria the way of Polio with fake data about eagle poaching.
Is the Ozone layer saved? (1970) Well it sorta repaired itself and its been found that hairspray doesn't do jack to hurt it.
How about the rain forests? (1970) Um, it seems the lumber industry keeps replanting two trees for every one it cuts down. There are more trees now than there were a hundred years ago.
Swine Flu Epidemic (1972, 1986, 2011) Well it turns out that the early vaccines either did more harm than good and recently the ones developed were useless because they were created too late. And the swine flu actually was only 1/10th as dangerous as the regular flu anyway. Fabricated crisis to show how well the government could handle a medical crisis. Fail.
How about global cooling? (1985-1992) Um wait what? I was all for that. I was living in Chicago.
How about global warming? Seems if you don't agree with the other government scientists, you can lose your government job.
How about climate change? Well after it was determined that the IPCC was sending e-mails about how little proof there was that anthropogenic global warming existed, that they had to re-brand themselves and now have to prove that man made CO2 causes hurricanes, tornadoes, polar vortexes, and the like. That way they can keep their funding.
Dude, your dad has been around the block a few times. He probably believed in some or most of the above issues. But somewhere down the line he realized that this is not about science, or saving the planet. Its about justification of governmental intervention. And politicians like nothing more than a crisis, real or fabricated, for it gives them the excuse to raise taxes -- carbon tax, recycle tax, emissions testing, ethanol subsidies, tax breaks, fuel taxes, for green vehicles(tax increase for regular vehicle uses), etc.
A plane was just shot down over Ukraine with Russian military equipment.
Hamas has launched 4000 rockets into civilian Israel and is using civilian Palestinians as human shields by placing rocket launchers on hospital roofs and near schools.
Anthrax accidentally exposing CDC personnel? Viable smallpox samples found at the FDA?
Kids being raped, murdered, or left to die trying to cross the borders into America from Mexico because of a political immigration photo op gone wrong.
The integrity of three government agencies, the IRS, Veterans Administration, and Justice Department is in serious question.
Health coverage premiums have gone up by 30% for the average family household. ($1500 more annually)
We have withdrawn militarily from the Middle east and the instability will reach a flash point.
The government would love you to be distracted by ANYTHING except the fruits of their incompetence. Its easy for the government to point their finger at you for NOT CARING about climate change and how much gas your family is using and you are echoing their tactics. There are real issues out there. Be glad your old man is on to this game. He'll point you to them.
The facts are that while CO2 can cause some warming.
1, there is no evidence to show that a little warming would be bad in fact it might be beneficial
2, There has been very little rise in temperatures, 0.8C over the last 150yrs and none at all in the last decade even though CO2 is escalating.
3, if there is any warming from CO2 it is completely overshadowed by natural forces.
4, CO2 is proving to be beneficial, agricultural crops are increasing, vegetation is increasing, (up to 11% globally since 1980 even taking deforestation into account) especially in arid regions, and deserts are shrinking.
4, without new improved technology we have no chance of reducing CO2 emissions China India and other developing countries are pushing forward as fast as they can, and have no intention of reducing CO2 emissions, solar and wind are proving just to costly unreliable and inefficient to be of use.
So I am with your father, I do not believe we are killing the world, well not by burning fossil fuels anyway, the world has so many other problems, poverty, health, deforestation, real pollution (heavy metals, pesticides, plastics)
idk, I think a lot of people don't believe in it because it isn't real. that would be my guess.
