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.
And good point on the "who benefits" thing...
I don't accept your assumptions.
Why do you think I think it is a hoax?
Why do you think I think people are lying?
This is how I see it working: The climate has been warming. Some of that warming may be due to man-made CO2. Scientists have realised that lots of government funding will go their way if they research man-made global warming. Consequently, lots of papers exist about man-made global warming. (This is one reason why the Cook et al 97% paper has bias.)
Scientist's published papers are often hyped in a press release. It is hyped again by the media. The IPCC picks the most alarmist papers it can find and publishes a compendium with a hyped introduction called the Summary for Policy Makers.
When all this dies down, the scientists will try to appear blameless. The media will say that they were misled. The politicians will blame scientists and the media. The taxes, however, will still be in place!
In the UK, science education was decreasing. No-one wanted to learn the difficult stuff. Universities were making cuts to courses and staff. Now, several universities have put themselves on the map in th field of climate and now have more staff, bigger departments, more courses, the ear of government etc.
Certain individuals have gained. Can you think of anyone who earns $100,000 per speech, gives courses to the converted, runs several "non-profits", advises governments and the UN and was all set to make a fortune out of carbon trading?
Think of all the government employees who got free holidays in Kyoto, Cancun, Doha etc. We sent a Gender Adviser from the UK (and a few hundred others).
Then there are the governments. They all like raising lots of taxes. Unfortunately, taxes are not so popular with the people who pay them. A tax to save the planet is proving surprisingly popular. A popular tax is a politician's dream.
There are the people who want to be a government. The problem for the UN is that although they have everything in place to rule the world they do not have any guaranteed funding. Our governments can vote to not give them anything. So the UN would like a guaranteed income. A global climate tax of some sort would fit the bill nicely. Once the system is in place it can be extended as necessary.
What about the Green organizations? The rank and file members genuinely want to "help the planet". These people's good nature is being used by the higher echelons to further their political agendas and provide funding. (This is one of the similarities to religion. The Catholic church has its rank and file Christians. What Christ did not advocate was that there needed to be a well-paid hierarchy that lived in palaces and grand houses. That just sort of happened. Some of the past popes (middle ages) were not particularly Christian, either. Russian Communism was similar. We are all equal but I will work in a palace, have a free house in the country, a luxury limousine, a chauffeur, staff and other benefits. You will live in a high-rise flat.)
Take note of what some "green" people have said: http://www.green-agenda.com/
It is true the science is not about consensus but is about observation, reason and logic. however, those that are trained in observation, reason and logic in climate change consist of those that understand the system. They do not consists of people who state that 'The effects of CO2 logarithmically diminish with increasing concentration therefor there is nothing to worry about" nor do they consist of people who state "temperatures have changed in the past therefor the current warming is nothing to worry about" or "CO2 is plant food". They believe the benefit for those making the claims is purely monetary or politically motivated.
It is accepted that for every doubling of CO2 there will be an increase in temperature, purely from that CO2 alone without any feedbacks, of 1.2C. This means that a doubling from 20ppm to 40ppm would have the same effect as a doubling from 280ppm to 560ppm. People that state the first point ignore this and do not understand it. The person that stated it in this thread bases his assumptions on a graph in a blog when I have directed him to scientific textbooks used in university courses, scientific journals, and so on to explain to him that what he is saying is false. I have even pointed it out that those scientists regarded as 'skeptics' who he usually backs state the same yet, for some reason, he continues on with his misunderstanding. For people like this that refuse to learn anything new outside of their core beliefs there is not much hope. Let's just hope that sometime soon they will open their eyes.
Under the terms of consensus, me a dyed in the wool skeptic, would be considered among the consensus why? because does man emit CO2 yes of cause we do, is CO2 a greenhouse gas yes of course it is, does it cause warming of course it does.
However now let me explain my point of view, the warming effect of CO2 logarithmically diminishes with concentration, most of it's warming was done at pre industrial levels, the extra we add now will cause very little warming, but will give huge benefits in terms of increasing plant biomass, and crop production.
I once took an environmental science class in college, way before "Global Warming" got it's dancing shoes.
The "guest professor" who lectured on 'warming was a lady from University of Washington (Huskies). She said that planet earth was warming up whether we want it to or not. Reason is because Earth is naturally a warm planet. There is evidence of this from the many fossil remains such as dinosaurs, coal deposits and oil fields. In order to create that much vegetation, earth needed to have plenty of sunshine and rain. It needed to be warm, and inarguably it was - for millions, billions of years.
So Earth is a naturally warm place, warmer than it is right now. The novelty of our snapshot in time is that we are coming out of a weather phenomenon known as an "Ice Age". Something happened about 100,000 years ago that triggered major changes sending us into massive snow because the sun was blocked out for years. What exactly happened, the weather mechanics are beyond this discussion, just that it did, and now we are warming back up to thermal equilibrium.
So is global warming occurring? Yep. It would happen with, or without humans.
The arguments are qualifiable, results are quantifiable. It's easy to see pictures of Alaska's terrain from the 1880s to early 1920s and compare them today. Very dramatic loss of snow, ice and glaciers.
The Global Warming topic is a wonderful platform from which "concerned" peoples can hang their hat on and say "See! See! You can't tell me it's not happening!"
The way I see it is this: Global warming is happening and there is nothing we can do to STOP it. But we can SLOW it down. If humans did not exist global warming would happen . . . at whatever rate of change it would. However, the 'professor' did say that our pollution is probably contributing to the rate of change such that the warming is happening faster that it would if uninterrupted. Meaning: although warming is going to happen, say over the next 10,000 years (just for discussion), human's intervention MIGHT get us to thermal equilibrium in half the time. We're unwitting accomplices in getting there faster.
The argument of reducing pollution, reducing carbon footprint and all the hoopla that we see in the media does not concern me too much in and of itself. The thing that erks me is "THEY" want the gullible people to think that Global Warming is the reason, -- I that's where I stand my ground and am speaking up.
We should reduce pollution for the pure sake of reducing pollution because it messes up and contaminates our earthly resources for our future. NOT because it contributes to global warming.
We should look for different ways to reduce our C footprint because the result means we are "Getting Smart" and using fuels more efficiently and extending our resources. NOT because of Global Warming. Most of the things that "Global Warmers" want us to do is fine because in the long run it better disciplines our industries and consumers for a better managed earth, NOT because of Global Warming.
Because your own people have stated it is a hoax and the science is phony.
Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official: "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."
Wealth redistribution is a tenet of Communism. Communism has a history of presenting hoaxes to the masses. So they clearly state that it isn't about environment, but about your money. They want to take it away from you. Do you need a kick in the head? Wake up man. When your own people tell you it is a hoax, believe them.
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.”
When your own people tell you that AGW science is 'phoney' (sic), believe them!
There isn't a scientific consensus. That is the myth. The only consensus is that humans emit GHGs and increased GHGs should increase the temperature from what it would be without them all else being equal. Alarmists would like you to believe that that "consensus" means that scientists agree that humans are causing or will cause catastrophic warming. That is just nonsense. I know some leftists (alarmists) like to try to bend the consensus to push their agenda. The benefit in fighting their agenda is freedom and prosperity. We are living in the consequences of creeping socialism over decades but rapid expansion of the state under the current regime. I know the low information alarmists wouldn't dare blame Obama's policies. These are the low information people that we are in danger from. They really are clueless about the consequences of their politics. They just blame their woes on Fox News and Bush because that is what they are spoon fed.
This Q draws a lot of self-serving & indifferent deniers!
Liberals are interested in global warming and climate science as a result of their desire to grow government. They lie to themselves so they never realize this. They just tell themselves they are interested in science, facts, and pragmatism. That is a lie.
As for climate change, the science isn't settled. The climate is very complex and the study of it too new. Way too little is known to make any sort of predictions about climate into the future. For information on just how damaging and stupid Obama's new global-warming initiative is, click here for Charles Krauthammer's recent article: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-...
Ask Al Gore
Since he invented it right before he invented the internet
Why do you believe that global warming is a liberal hoax when the scientific consensus is that it is occurring? Moreover, those behind the allegations of the global warming "myth," if lying as you believe, would likely benefit in some way from making their claims. What is this benefit?
Liberals want to control people with Carbon taxes .
1) Because they can't ever predict anything correctly, and haven't ever predicted anything correctly.
2) Because they're wrong, and most of their arguments are "correlation = cause" or "according to the models.."
3) http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/what...
Their benefit, is that they're continuing to be employed to conduct poor experiments and create propaganda for the left.... a relatively easy job if you're never expected to report the truth...
