People chose to deny (note : not being skeptical of) anything that challenges their prejudices.
Mobs deny climate change, evolution, bigbang theory.....even the fact that fossil fuels are fossil fuels
If man-made global warming was taken seriously by its supporters they would advocate genuine solutions such as adding small amounts of iron to the oceans to cause the microscopic plants to multiply and absorb the carbon dioxide back into the biosphere whence it originally came.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertil...
A solution both practical and inexpensive.*
Failing that, they would advocate replacing the base load electrical power generation with mass produced nuclear power plants as one of the quickest, cheapest and most effective means of reducing carbon emissions.
If its supporters don't take it seriously, why should anyone else?
--------------------------------------...
Optional section:
*Amazingly, there have been those that have failed to read the link before objecting:
1) The entire point was that the oceans are iron deficient relative to other nutrients. Phosphorus, for example, is present but underutilized.
2) "…It might not work…" It is grounded on experimental findings and direct observation of a more solid nature than man-made global warming itself. Man-made global warming is based on inferences from extremely limited hard data. That the oceans respond to iron fertilization is directly demonstrable. It is a commonplace that vast amounts of microscopic plants sink to the bottom in quite effective sequestration.
Furthermore, source reduction is a 100% certain failure because the developing world simply will not follow carbon reductions unless they are less expensive than unrestricted use of fossil fuels. All that will happen, if source reduction is followed, is that the developed world will become impoverished and the major concentration of environmental concern will make itself irrelevant save as a bad example.
3) Yes, it is being investigated - slowly. Some of the original studies date back to 1993. For a fraction of the money and time wasted on source reduction, all aspects of the issue could have long since been concluded. On a practical level, since iron fertilization has been observed as a natural process (volcanoes, wind blown dust and upwellings, etc.), the insistence on more 'studies' borders on delay tactics. The fact that man-made global warming advocates flee from it like vampires from sunlight is to me a proof of their bad faith, that man-made global warming is a convenient propaganda tool to get them what they want politically.
People deny global warming, or man-made global warming, for the same reason people buy into religion. They're afraid to die. They realize that if global warming is actually occurring it is very likely that the species will not survive the next century. Maybe half a century.
I am a Quality Engineer. My life is determining whether something is caused by natural causes or special causes. The default (or null hypothesis in scientific terms) is that you reject the idea of a special cause unless you can prove it. I have been unconvinced that there was sufficient proof that the temperature of the planet was anything but natural variation, until recently. The data has now gone well beyond the 99.73% mark. The trends show obvious special causation. The natural causes have been shown to not align with the changes we are seeing. See the latest report below.
But, what can we do? We would need to stop burning all carbon based fuels. No burning oil, gasoline, propane, natural gas, coal, wood, dung, etc. by everyone everywhere. This will stop the excess CO2 production, but the accumulated CO2 would continue the warming for centuries anyway. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but it is not hopeful that we can do anything at this point. The only real cure is to remove all the people from this planet and let nature fix it.
The facts are that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that without greenhouse gasses the earth average temperature would be 33C colder (a giant snowball) and that we have added 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere.
From what I have seen on this site, not one denier disputes those facts, they just come up with other claims as to why the earth is warming, or even the deny that the earth is warming. Skepticalscience dot com keeps a list of the more common denier claims and debunks each and every one. So as to your question why they are denying the facts I have to say they have nothing to do with science and everything to do with apathy, extremist religion and/or politics as even half the republicans (other then the politicians) accept AGW.
And back up my claims, let me show some posts by one of the "top contributors" on this section of yahoo answers, Sagebrush (a self proclaimed Christian and ardent AGW denier) "Execute all those who voted for OBAMA" and "Hire the handicapped, they are fun to watch!" No follower of Christ would have those thoughts, let alone post them publicly on a website.
No one really doubts global warming, Just the poor science that the left perpetuates that blames it solely on human activity. Global warming is cyclical, about every 20000 years the Earth completes a cycle of cooling and warming and right now we're about halfway from the last ice age so the earth is still warming then it will cool again. There was no technology last time this happened. Money should be spent not on trying to prevent global warming, (it's going to happen anyway at some point) but to mitigate the effects of it. If the human race was to curb the amount of carbon dioxide by the amount needed to slow down global warming, we would be back to the middle ages.
I think the majority are under the age of 20 and havent lived LONG enough to compare the change in climate from years ago or they are just plain stupid to understand what the scientists are saying. You kidding ? The words are too big for these gerbil minds. They remind me of the ones that harass vegetarians and the christians that harass athiests. Trolls .
the ny times sunday magazine section did a story on a midwest coal fired power plant that was causing the nearby town so much pollution that you needed car headlights on at noon . the power plant operators figured it would cost 110 million to put a scrubber on the smoke stacks to reduce the CO2 emissions . instead of spending the 110 million to fix the problem , they BOUGHT out the entire town for 100 million , then gave themselves 10 million in bonuses , for saving that much .
it's all about the almighty dollar .
Yes we can scientifically deny that to be untrue. The earth has been cooling for over a decade now.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
You can see by this chart that the data collected by advocates of AGw prove this wrong. I went back only a decade since too many greenies claim that El Nino skewed the figures,so I will stay away from that. Also notice that these figures are 'raw data', and not massaged figures.
Now notice this lowering of temperatures is during a time when the CO2 level has gone up, contrary to your statement that GW is caused by a rise in CO2. There is no correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, and that is a fact.
So sit back and take a deep breath. It is not too late scientifically but it is too late to get our money back from this boondoggle.
Quote by Claude Culross, organic chemistry: “Dire predictions of catastrophe from that bottomless pit of disasters du jour, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are based solely on computer models that amount to poorly crafted mathematical opinions, not experimental proof....There is no proof that man-made carbon dioxide causes additional warming, or that carbon-dioxide reduction would reduce warming.”
Part of it is the wave of anti-intellectualism, anti-science mentality that has swept the United States over the last several decades, as technology has advanced and public education's ability to keep up with it has fallen further and further behind. As a country, our mistrust of things we do not understand has increased expotentially, fueled by fundamental religious beliefs, the sensationalized media, economic propaganda promoted by numerous sources, and a political process that has stalled as politicians have fed on the elements that have contributed to the ever-increasing polarization of public belief and opinion.
Philosophically, it is not unlike Newton's third law of motion, which states (in simple terms) that all forces exist in pairs. So politically, when people react to the findings of science-in some cases with alarm-other people will react with opposing force. That is what is in play now...most of us really don't fully understand climate science or the analysis of statistical probabilties, so when one group says there is X amount of probability of Y happening given (these) variables, some people react with alarm and put Doogie Houser wannabes on TV in commercials crying about polar bears, and others think that the Day After Tomorrow was not science fiction but science fact; other people scoff at that alarm and apply their own limited resources to make claims that they think effectively counter the scientific scenario, but in some cases their opposition views are as emotional-and even as maniacal-as the alarmists can be. That's called denial.
So these two groups are pushing back and forth based on emotional loyalties to personally held ideologies that are happily fueled by any number of sources, and these people are the ones who are most outspoken and get the press and attention. They are, essentially, extremist in their views and interacting in a scenario that we see repeated over and over again in American politics. Meanwhile, there is a broad majority of more moderate individuals who may or may not be skeptical of what science is telling us depending on their ability to interpret and understand the data and evidence available to them, including their own experience and observations. They don't really get a whole lot of time at the mike, and their opinions are more difficult to measure objectively...but most poll results do show that an increasing number of people are learning what AGW and what it really portends and consider the issue something that needs to be addressed.
And time marches on...
Because people don't want the glaciers to melt and polar bears or other animals wont have homes
Why are people so against global warming? The earth is getting warming and its a FACT you can't deny a FACT and we know it is because of the carbon dioxide we are pumping into the atmosphere. This is all proven and yet people deny this is happening! Why? How do they get away with denying it?
We need to put restriction on industry that pumps carbon into the atmosphere and yet they do NOTHING. This is so stupid, and it might already be too late. Do people just not care??
Yes, the earth is warming, thank God! Who would like to go back to the cold years when people died so much sooner and illnesses abounded? Warming is a good thing! The earth was in a cold period in the 1880s when temperatures began to be recorded. It is a great blessing that we are done with that awful cold.
People who oppose foolish laws are not against global warming. They are against the silliness that supposes that by ruining the economies of the world that one degree can be lowered! There is no evidence that CO2 is related in any way to the warming. Ask a hysterical global warming advocate if all humans were to drop dead tomorrow, what difference would it make in the temperature of the globe. Nothing! Warming would continue according to the natural patterns that are causing it today. That is what we oppose: getting all worked up about something that cannot be changed and, indeed, should not be changed, if it could be!
Some people have a poor understanding of science. Others are terrified of the idea of the planet being to hot for us to live on in the same way now compared to in a few hundred years. Its preferable to ignore the things we fear than to confront them and do something about it. There is also far more money in oil and coal than wind and solar power. There's more than this but these are a few reasons
The science behind their definitive claims is flawed. Certainly what is presented here confirms that. Those who say otherwise have no appreciation of the need to derive statistically verifiable scientific evidence that suggests uncertainty/skepticism is acceptably addressed. This lack of appreciation is only avoidance of good scientific method. Numerous attempts to query the natural causes of warming are met with silence and/or rigourous abuse from AGW advocates who label any queries as being in"denial" of the definitive statements they make.
My experience on this part of the website is that AGW advocates do not allow any skepticism to be raised at all. This is viewed as a politically motivated, spin doctored smokescreen to deflect attention from the real scientific issues. Varous examples of this spin doctored abuse are in my own questions and countless others. One example link below relates the silence from AGW advocates relevant to impacts of OCEAN CURRENTS to global temperature.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...
This next link outlines the abuse from most AGW advocates when question is raised about the labelling they use to abuse skepticism, and enforce the definitive claims that they make.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...
These examples show a political smokescreen of spin to deflect from science and adopt overbearing use of definitive statements by AGW advocates. Their alternative method is total silence toward skepticism. Both of these methods have nothing to do with good science.
There is no need whatsoever for a carbon tax. It is only designed as ongoing regulation/control of free enterprise combined with reaping in government taxation revenue. There are other, much more simpler and far less bureaucratic alternatives to controlling excess industrial air pollution. The alternatives address pollution at the source and only penalise those that create it. Not the entire community via an across the board carbon tax. These alternatives include enforced penalties/fines for breaches of industrial air pollution above benchmarked and regulated levels deemed excessive. These deemed excessive levels can only be determined via good scientific method that address uncertainty. Existing systems of environmental management can address this as they already use these methods to address contaminated land, groundwater and surface waters.
I really do think that most people just don't care. The "this little thing I do won't make a difference" attitude keeps it going& people think it won't badly affect them in their lifetime.
Aside from the fact that you haven't provided one shred of evidence to back up your claim that the Earth is warming, it seems all you can do is attack and regurgitate meaningless rhetoric aimed at those with opposing opinions.
Temperatures are 0.3 degrees lower than what they were in 1997, and that has been the trend for the last thirteen years
What you must also understand is that no one rejects the theory of climate change, climate change is natural, it is always happening and we can't stop it. However, millions of people reject the theory of anthroprogenic global warming, a theory which suggests that man is behind the warming. Global warming's occur when there is more solar activity, solar flares, sun spots and smilar things to that. The Milankovitch cycles also determine a lot of temperature changes on Earth, yet you don't hear the news talk about that, these cycles have a prolonged summer season and then it changes to a prolonged winter season when a global cooling occurs.
Over the last two years, carbon dioxide levels have increased whilst overall temperatures have decreased, thus disproving the theory of anthroprogenic global warming.
http://www.weatheraction.com/
But don't you understand the actual implications of following global warming policy? Mass depopulation, the destruction of global economies, the rise of internationalism,
The Club of Rome, a known supporter of environmentalism and the theory of anthroprogenic global warming, I will give you a quote from them:
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose."
--> 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.”
--> 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."
There of course has been a lot of lies with climate science, in 2009 on the eve of the Copenhagen conference, leaks came from the University of East Anglia, the center of study for man made global warming saying how the supposed scientists were hiding the decline in temperatures.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesd...
And finally, there is no consensus on anthroprogenic global warming, very far from it. John Christy, lead author of the 2001 IPCC report has come out against the alarmism and scare-mongering that many NON-SCIENTISTS engage in, lying that Earth will boil if we don't hand over our freedom and our money. Likewise, over THIRTY ONE THOUSAND scientists have come out against anthroprogenic global warming.
http://www.petitionproject.org/
Now do you understand why people are skeptical of anthroprogenic global warming?
increase in pollution and cutting down tree etc.
because it is scary and people want to deny it out of fear
All they care about is themselves.
Omg, sounds like someones been to brainwash camp. There's so much wrong with what you've written. No it's not a fact, if anything the years seem a bit colder. And please, it's all because of co2! well that certainly isn't a fact and in fact there's zero evidence that man's co2 output affects climate. You're going to have to learn to not believe everything you're spoon fed by people who don't have your best interests in their plan.
