1. 

The science on AGW is in and the fact deniers can only answer the science with conspiracy theories that regularly change is all the answer really needed.

Here a challenge try and find 'any' science site that supports denier views, you won't find one.

Just look at the sites deniers try to use, sites like Heartland a site with a long history of trying to ignore science and push corporate views they are doing this now for oil and energy but also still try to push the tobacco industry view that smoking is safe, a fight that in reality they lost decades ago.

A struggle the tobacco industry spent billions trying to delay, the energy and oil industry have far larger profits to protect.

I still find it laughable when deniers try to claim green groups or Al Gore are funding bribery on this issue when the pockets of the oil industry are exponentially deeper. I have seen deniers on this site try to argue the oil industry doesn't make that much money, this is laughable given they are public companies with listed profit results that are clearly in the 100's of billions of dollars.

In 2012 Saudi Aramco the worlds largest oil company, generated 12.5 million barrels per day, roughly 1 billion dollars a day, Exxon comae in 4th on this list at a mere 40 billion dollars a year, but even that dwarfs green and/or Gore funds.

If scientists where really that easy to bribe then we would not have a AGW issue, (the oil industry would have made it go away) but the fact is most scientists can't be 'bought off' which is why deniers have so few scientists to call on and most of the ones they do have are retired and no longer earning a normal wage.

Also why most of the prime mouth pieces for the denier movement are people like Watts, Mockingtone and the like not scientists at all and the sources for most of their claims come from blogs and their own websites rather than real science.

I guess the real answer to your question, is why would anyone believe the rot deniers peddle even they stories they spin change on an almost daily basis, one day it's Gore, then it's scientists, then it's not happening, then it is happening but it's "natural cycles", then it's the Sun, then it's Cosmic Rays etc etc etc.

Probably because the globe has been getting warmer for a few centuries. Hence the term 'global warming'

Yes. Strangely enough, so do the people who actually study the climate.

What kind of twisted world is it where people educate scientists then tell them they're wrong despite they, themselves, not being educated in those fields?

That's what one might call 'breath-taking arrogance'. Or just plain 'stupidity'.

Joseph Goebbels,

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Just look at the ones who answer on this site.

"They got their education from a UNIVERSITY!" Yah, by a Communist professor. Whoopee!

"Just look at NOAA. They will tell you. It is official." Yes which was led at one time by one James Hansen, who has now retired and is now a full time communist activist.

"Ten warmest years in recorded history." Ha! Ha! That one is so shallow only a person of Dork's mental ineptness could believe it. That 'recorded history' started in 1987 when method of recording was standardized. No one will argue that.

"We are causing it." Never been proven, but it sounds rough and tough.

"It is a fact!" Notice the exclamation mark? That means you really should believe it without even questioning it. Th FACT is the Earth has been cooling for over a decade.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...

Yet the FACT is that the CO2 level has increased at this time. Those two FACTS factually prove the AGW theory wrong.

But when you recognize this, people like 'C' just hurl insults. (Very scientific.)

Then you have some who believe it because their teacher says so. Which only proves that Goebbels was right.

Joseph Goebbels,

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Then you have people like Baccy who would swear to anything to advance this crooked agenda. Here is where I caught Baccy in a horrendous outright lie.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

Why do these people who claim they spout science, which is the study of truth, have to lie so much?

Then there are some who claim they saw it themselves. I heard that story about the bogeyman when I was five years old. I have advanced in knowledge since then.

Even the staunchest of proponents don't even believe in the crap science.

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.”

Quote by Timothy 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.”

Quote by Richard Benedik, former U.S./UN bureaucrat: "A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect."

I would imagine that there are some of those who truly believe in that crap science. After all, President Carter opened the doors to the insane asylums back in the 70s.

Carbon dioxide and green house gases released from automobiles, human activities, etc. gets trapped in the atmosphere and "blankets" the earth, therefore when the sun beams down on it, it heats up slowly.

At least, thats what my science teacher says.

It's not a question of belief global warming is a fact, even most denialists will admit that. The questions that remain are the cause, even denialists will admit that human activity has some effect but question the degree, and what can be done to best ameliorate the effects. The politicisation of the issue is a red herring and any attempt to so is best ignored

Are you asking because you really want to know, or are you happy in your ignorance?

If you really want to know, go to the National Academies of Science, the association of America's greatest scientists. This is the best of the best. They have a pamphlet for you that explains exactly why scientists know human activity is warming the environment.

I expect that you won't read it because you don't like to educate yourself. But in case I am wrong, you can download it from here (there is also a series of videos if you prefer).

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoi...

Global warming is a fact and anyone with a brain knows this

In case you might think my question is off topic, just let me assure you that it comes from observations of answers given here, especially in Global Warming:

What is the opposite of the Dunning-Kruger effect?

One of the reasons I ask this is because I just read an article by an expert who may an example of someone afflicted by it: http://thefederalist.com/2014/01/17/the-...

anyone?didnt think so,anyway why did people used to belive in global warming?

I've seen the effects for myself, and understand the science. It's real, we're causing it, and we're totally screwed.

Yes. The sun warms up the globe on a daily basis.

Only the ones who learned their science at a university, not from Big Energy propaganda.

Just the folks that want to bilk Cash out of poor and old people