Why do they do it? A question that has been asked a thousand times here at least.
Here are a few answers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_cha...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_o...
(Newsw.) http://www.sharonlbegley.com/global-warm...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._M...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartla...
http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/H...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_family
Not true - Let's just agree that so-called "global warming" is a proven science. There's no reason to continue to study and research it any longer. And since co2 is a problem, use the money saved from funding needless research into building nuclear power plants. Half of the co2 generated in this country is from power generation so nuclear would cut co2 output in half. Sound good to you?
It seems to be more of an "emotional issue" for environmentalist scientists in order to "save the planet" from the virus of the human condition. They can't seem to reason the difference between "positive" (constructive) energy and "destructive" energy.
Financial and Governmental Elitism is a bigger problem against humanity than what "Global Warming/Climate Change" is. "Controlling" people's behavior is the goal of environmentalism/elitism.
Questioning or being skeptical about a doctor's diagnosis is what people should do. Anyone who believes that doctor's know the solution to any problem that is "complicated" (just as the climate is complicated) leaves too much room for error. Climate scientists have always admitted that they don't know a lot about how the climate works.
All evidence pointing towards human's causing the planet irreparable harm should be considered "Alarmunism" by "environmentalists" without just cause.
What is global warming? Is it any warming? Is it just the warming caused by man? We don't know how much warming humans have caused. Why would I believe in something that isn't understood very well by anybody. Some people like to pretend to understand it but they are invariably leftists who are exaggerating their knowledge so that they can use AGW as a tool to increase government regulation and taxation on energy.
California tried to "control" people by asking for voluntary water conservation and water use actually increased.
I am lucky that I have a very good doctor but he is retiring soon. I certainly respect his opinion but I have to understand what he means if he says something is wrong. Unlike alarmists, he is very good at explaining why he believes what he believes so I generally don't disagree with him and he generally doesn't say things as if they are facts.
Possibly because we read IPCC reports -- OK I didn't read all 1500 pages, but I realized that these guys were definitely NOT providing scientific data but subjective opinion. Yeah that's the one produced by the UN which states that global warming is a likely trend.
This is a direct passage from section D of the IPCC's AR5 (Policy summary) report. It basically says the earth has been on a cooling trend since 1998. If you filter through the scientific mumbo jumbo they are saying that (RF factors -- or natural causes) may have caused the earth surface temperatures to cool showing that their climate models for the last 16 years have been wrong. They are blaming everything from volcanic eruptions to hairspray. A volcanic eruption spews out more CO2 and greenhouse gas than 100 years of man made CO2 emissions would contribute to global warming, but they are claiming the opposite. This passage is a UN IPCC CYA in case someone ever finds out that the whole global warming argument is POLITICAL and not scientific.
"The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998 to 2012 as compared to the period 1951 to 2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from natural internal
variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (
medium confidence ). The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar
cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in causing the reduced warming trend. There is medium confidence that natural internal decadal variability causes to a substantial degree the difference between observations and the simulations; the latter are not expected to reproduce the timing of natural internal variability. There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the effects of aerosols). {9.4, Box 9.2, 10.3, Box 10.2, 11.3"
The AR5 IPCC report is full of "qualitative" judgements, such as "likely" or "more likely", "Less likely", "low confidence" etc. If you have ever written any lab report, the best way for you to fail that report is to use qualitative/subjective judgements rather than solid data to support your conclusion. As you study their report it sounds more like "I didn't really do any research but I have high confidence that IF I actually did have solid data it is more likely that I would get the result that someone else did from last year's medium confidence report." Look at the terminology used. "Low confidence"? "Medium confidence"? In science you either have the data to prove it or you don't. The entire report is filled with this type of subjective/qualitative judgement and therefore useless as scientific paper and likely written by scientific hacks. The so called "skeptics" in this case are the ones that use terms like "standard deviation of + or - X% and have a firm grasp of the scientific method. Halley, Galileo, Newton, Patterson, Einstein, Faraday, Curie or Darwin would never have hedged their bets like that in a published document.
BTW Maxx's chart corroborates the UN findings as well as NASA's.
They have been misinformed by people paid by the fossil fuel industry, with the help of conservative media. Also, they don't see that much of an effect yet. But they will!! If you want to help, check out citizensclimatelobby.org.
Jello, "Half of the co2 generated in this country is from power generation so nuclear would cut co2 output in half. Sound good to you?"
Ah, got a headache? Let me pound your hand with this hammer. See, your head doesn't hurt nearly as much now, does it?
Maxx, that chart's a lie, and you know it. It's from Monckton. A known liar.
http://www.realclimate.org/images//heat_...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...
Zippi, ""Controlling" people's behavior is the goal of environmentalism/elitism."
Well yeah, getting corporations to not dump their waste in the river that's the drinking water source for the next down downstream could be construed as 'controlling their behavior."
Getting people to not dump their used motor oil out behind their house could be construed as 'controlling their behavior."
Getting people in Calif to conserve water could be construed as 'controlling their behavior."
Unfortunately, there are lots of people who behave badly.
That's why we have police departments.
Seems that today, we need to change people's attitude toward CO2.
Jim Z: "California tried to "control" people by asking for voluntary water conservation and water use actually increased."
Yes, but not all over the state.
In fact, the increase is pretty much only in conservative areas of the state.
LA and the NE corner of the state are the problem.
Most of the state, way more than 90%, has conserved.
http://la.curbed.com/archives/2014/07/so...
Zippi62: "It seems to be more of an "emotional issue" for environmentalist scientists in order to "save the planet" from the virus of the human condition."
It is an emotional issue.
We have children.
We's like them to inherit a country, and a world, that's better than we did.
The claim that scientists are lying is wrong.
They're not.
The idea that you know more than scientists is wrong. (to be kind)
You don't.
DosCentavos: "A volcanic eruption spews out more CO2 and greenhouse gas than 100 years of man made CO2 emissions would contribute to global warming, but they are claiming the opposite."
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/arch...
In "2003 (fossil fuel emissions) tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes."
"volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually."
Volcanic emissions were less than 1% of fossil fuel emissions.
A skeptic questions QGW because there is reason for uncertainty.
Dieniers somehow are sure.
Why do you continue to screech it's warming, when it's not?
"Why do the skeptics fail to believe in global warming?"
"What are a few reasons that make a skeptic a denier? "
For the most vociferous, the real problem is the cost of energy.
Clearly coal is the cheapest source of energy.
And contributes the most to global warming.
Somehow, I doubt that they often question their doctor's diagnosis.
But claim that climate scientists are lying.
Claim that universities are turning out deluded graduates.
Claim that all of the science academies are putting out statements that their members disagree with.
Why can't deniers just say they don't care if it's warming?
Why can't deniers just say it's all about the money needed to address CO2?
Why can't they say that they really don't care what kind of world their grandchildren will inherit?
Why can't they say that they're okay with not addressing the problem, and thus, in essence, stealing from the next generation?
