If you think that God created this earth so shoddy that man can change the climate, you are worshiping the wrong god. Man cannot even control a forest fire, let alone a climate. Man can't control a tornado, but you think he can control a climate? Which one would be harder to control? A climate, obviously.
You see thousands of trees being cut down. Yes that is true. But do you see the four trees that are planted for every tree cut down? No, you don't because you are being propagandized. You are seeing only one side of the subject. In the US there are more trees now than there were when Columbus discovered America. The forestry industry, which has existed for centuries, couldn't exist without replanting.
You look at smog and cringe. Yes that is not good, but a volcano eruption puts out more pollution and yet the earth cleans that up. Earth was created to have natural cycles of cleaning, even more wonderful than man can even comprehend. So trust those natural actions.
Why do you even listen to hypocrites, such as Al Gore, anyway? He is getting rich by scaring you, and you are prematurely getting old by listening to him. You may say that you don't have anything to do with him, but you follow his reasoning. You repeat the same things, in whole or in part, that he says. You do exactly what he says you should do, even though he doesn't. That is not good reasoning. That is being a puppet. Be a human and learn the truth, not a puppet who doesn't even know who is pulling his or her strings.
Just look at Trevor, a person who has been caught many time distorting and prevaricating, "Rather than adopting a more considered and rational approach of “I believe you are wrong and this is why…” their approach tends to be “you’re wrong because I say so”. Then compare that with your opening statement. There is no argument, in your mind. You have just made a statement and consider it an indisputable fact. That is hypocritical, but again that is the whole environmentalist movement. Trevor has this reverse psychology, he states an action and pretends that he is against this action, when he is practicing it himself. Hypocrisy in it's highest form.
In case anyone wants to dispute what I say about Trevor's truthfulness I will again give you the question.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...
Then Trevor has the audacity to say
Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Justice and equality is a slogan for Communistic activities. (Very political.)
Quote by Timoth Wirth, U.S./UN functionary, former elected Democrat Senator: “We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Policy is a word with its roots in politics.)
In direct and simple answer to your question: Because there is no credible scientific evidence that man can change the climate. We true scientists refused to be politically manipulated.
In my experience of visiting sceptic blogs and websites I would say that no sceptics deny that there is some human involvement in climate change. The big question is how to quantify that "some". As has already been said, no one knows for sure.
As was discovered, but strangely not mentioned, in the world's most recent 97% consensus survey only 0.3% of the surveyed papers claimed that man caused over 50% of the warming.
The other problem is the shear scale of the situation. We could all buy low energy lamps in the UK. We could reduce our travel. In fact we could scrap all cars, vans, trucks, ships, planes, houses, shops, offices, factories, power stations - anything that creates CO2, and the world would have achieved a respite of only a few months. So you could obliterate an entire country and only save less than a year. The increases in China and India etc are so overwhelmingly large.
Current proposals are to spend trillions of dollars to fix this problem. I would like to be sure that something useful comes from that amount of spend. Increasing the number of bureaucrats in the world is not on my "must do" list.
World poverty is much higher up on my list. While atmospheric physics is difficult to comprehend I find living on less than $1.25 per day even more difficult to comprehend.
Individual lifestyle has no impact. The US as a whole has a minimal impact, because the rest of the world has decided they don't want to live in poverty. China is now the leading carbon emitter, and it's much more than the US. In fact, US, Europe, Russia, Japan, Canada, Australia, South Korea combined are at 40% of total emissions and dropping. You could completely shut off all emissions of carbon dioxide from those countries, and you would still not solve global warming, as the IPCC has called for an 80% cut. The rest of the world is increasing it's emissions by a large amount, so any drop that the US does would disappear in one year as China opened more coal plants.
I don't deny or support human involvement in climate change any more than I deny or support climate change and global warming. The issue with me is a matter of trust. Scientist seem to have sold out to the highest bidder these days so I am not likely to trust their results. Government obviously cannot be trusted. Since I don't know who to trust in the issue, I simply move on with my life.
The fact of the matter is, the climate will change with or without human involvement. We as a species, are self centered and egotistical and I believe our inability to interact in a positive way will destroy us long before the next deep freeze comes along.
Because the data does not support the theory, when almost all the data says the climate models are wrong, and the world is cooling, AGW advocates tell us that the heat is going 2000 Meters down and warming the deep oceans, and that is proof that climate is still warming, even though 90% of the global temperature metrics tell as that the world is cooling. CO2 is magical stuff it can cause the heat to bypass the first 700 meters of ocean and warm the oceans a mile down. But hey anything goes in climate change, why would you deny anything.
If the climate was naturally cooling as some alarmists claim, then how do you explain that our CO2 emissions are accelerating the process? Words mean things. You can't just want something to be true. It has to backed with real science and real arguments. I believe our CO2 emissions are affecting the climate. I just don't know if it is a fraction of a degree, a degree, or what it is exactly and no one else does either. Some just pretend to know so they can push their cause or they just feel good thinking they know something.
Edit. Bacheous, as is typical for you, you make up things in your mind and then really believe them to be true. I suppose that is one of your characteristics that makes you susceptible to brainwashing and group think. Clearly there are imbeciles amongst the ranks of all organizations but I didn't say that. I don't grovel at their feet like some alarmists seem to do either.
You can't argue with logic:
1. Science says climate is changing due to increased fossil fuel emissions
2. The solution is to reduce or stop emissions
3. This means regulations, taxes or other incentives to change behavior
4. Governments need to be involved
5. People hate taxes and government telling them what to do
6. THEREFORE... the science is WRONG.
Sensible people like you and me, question climate change and anyone who is not a fanatic, has to realize that we have to be having an effect on climate, the big question is how much? is it harmful? or maybe even beneficial.
I like you cut down on car use, and reduce electrical and water use, which is nothing to do with the so called ridiculously named carbon footprint, it is because I don't like waste and increased costs.
We are doing a lot of bad things to this planet of ours, as you say, but I do not include CO2 among them, CO2 is a blessing in disguise, it is increasing plant bio-mass, causing deserts to recede, increasing crop production (many greenhouse farms increase CO2 to 1200ppm to increase yields and reduce irrigation) and in fact greening our planet.
There seems to be many different reasons why people resist accepting that humans are influencing the climate, these reasons are numerous and varied.
For some it boils down to politics and nothing more. They tend to see the subject of global warming only on the basis of left vs right or liberals vs conservatives. There are certain respondents on here who introduce this concept in sizeable proportions of their answers, typically accusing those who have a different opinion of being leftists, communists, liberals etc. Rather than adopting a more considered and rational approach of “I believe you are wrong and this is why…” their approach tends to be “you’re wrong because I say so”.
Another common problem is something called the Dunning Kruger effect, essentially someone not knowing what they don’t know. As a result the person isn’t aware of their own ignorance and incompetence, they believe they know what they’re talking about when in reality they don’t actually have a clue. Answers is drowning in examples of this, to those with a greater degree of competence these examples stand out like sore thumbs.
A third reason would be denial psychosis. It sounds like some sort of condition in which the subject is deranged but it’s actually very, very common and everybody is affected to one degree or another. A common example is the sports fan who is convinced their team will win even though they may have an appalling track record and everything is weighted against them. It is, in essence, believing in what one might perceive as the preferred option rather than the rational option.
When it comes to a subject such as global warming the psychosis manifests itself as a kind of mental filter. The subject subconsciously filters out anything that goes against their opinion whilst at the same time, allowing in anything that supports their position. The consequence is that hard evidence easily can be rejected whilst quite bizarre ‘evidence’ will be accepted.
For other people it may come down to religion. There are conflicting viewpoints here with some believing that their god is a loving god that would never allow global warming to happen, whilst others believe that global warming is foretold in their religious texts and openly accept it.
There’s some other psychological barriers such as the denial, distancing and diffusion of responsibility. Effectively one is convincing themselves that they bear no responsibility for causing the problem, they have nothing to do with it and even if it were real then it’s up to other people to deal with it.
There’s also gullibility, susceptibility and inhibited rationalisation – traits that advertisers consistently exploit. There could be a product which is complete garbage, people will see an advert and the reaction this triggers will lead them to think the product is good. Information and opinions can be ‘sold’ to people in much the same way. There are some generalisations as to how people will respond (age, education, gender etc) but no hard and fast rules. As a result you could have a bunch of people in a room, play them two conflicting messages and some will be convinced that one is right and the other is wrong, whereas others will be convinced of the opposite – despite all subjects having been exposed to identical messages.
How this relates to the climate change skeptics centres mostly on the fossil fuel industry propaganda campaign aimed at discrediting the science of global warming. Out of this campaign came a number of pseudo-scientific reports and a whole load of weird and wonderful claims. Some people believed the lies and to this day they still do, despite the fact that the chief protagonist has publicly admitted it was all propaganda and has apologised for same.
In many cases there’s no one hard and fast reason why a person rejects the notion of human induced climate change, it could be a bit of several of the above and many other reasons as well.
One thing that tends to be a common thread amongst a sizeable number of skeptics is the need for substantiation and justification. To this end, a lot of the skeptics have a need to justify their belief to themselves and this manifests itself in many of the irrational and delusory claims that are made. At the same time, for many there is a desire to have their position validated by finding someone who agrees with them. It’s not uncommon to find ‘questions’ on forums like this one where the asking doesn’t want an answer, just someone to agree with them.
These are just some of the reasons, do bear in mind that my response is structured to your question and therefore the focus is on the skeptics; these same characteristics manifest themselves in some of the adherents as well so it’s not all one sided.
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.
It's fact that the climate is indeed changing, and that the Earth naturally goes through major climate changes every now and then for billions of of years. But at this day and age, human activities are accelerating the process. I am not saying humans are directly responsible, just that they're adding to climate change.
But I've come across some people that completely deny that human activities have any effect on climate change. Like the people that will see thousands of acres of forest being cut down, the smog around cities, etc., and these people think "nope, that does not have any impact on the environment whatsoever."
I oppose the environmentalist trying to sell me a Prius, telling me to change my entire lifestyle for the environment, or trying to push questionable legislation about protecting the environment. But then again, I recycle, reduced my car usage, cut down on electrical and water use, just little things to reduce my "carbon footprint." I acknowledge that my activities do have an impact, but there are some people so deep in denial that they want to continue driving the gas-guzzler, refuse to recycle just because they believe their lifestyle has zero impact whatsoever. Why are they like that?
It is only people who hate science.
The previous poster, JimZ, has previously stated that our National Academy of Science and all of our greatest physicists are "idiots" and "imbeciles". These people truly believe that everyone who studies physics is part of a Marxist plot to rule the world. They are angered by education and scientific study.
All of the world's national science academies have said that AGW is beyond dispute. There is no debate among real scientist that humans are causing climate change. So the uneducated deniers choose to hate scientists altogether.
And your evidence/proof for these wild claims that fly in the face of real world evidence is..................... let me guess you saw it on tv lol.
when exactly did you decide to become so anti human ?
Its a bogus theory not based on fact only computer models that cannot predict anything .
Because it simply doesn't exsist.
