The oil industry rejects global warming because it sees clean energy as a threat to its profits.
Some people are afraid that they will not be allowed to drive or to heat and light their homes, even though all thes things can be done with clean energy.
Some church leaders in the Bible belt reject global warming because many oil companies are headquartered in the Bible Belt and these church leaders love having 10% of oil industry profits in their offering buckets.
The government wants to reject global warming because doing anything about it does not get votes.
I find it frustrating that people don't accept global warming. The reason they don't is because then they will have to do something about it, which means making sacrifices. People don't want to give up what they love such as video games and other things that hurt our planet.
There are people who are devoted to their faith and then reject an idea unless proof is given. In reality, there is no proof to mos things that are real. But many beleive that Global Warming isnt caused by people, probable since the Earth seems to go through a period of mass extinction every few thousand years. But foolish to think we arent adding to this.
Because the climate warmed 0.6 Degrees from 1910 to 1945 before there was any measurable human introduced CO2 in the atmosphere. And then when civilization really began pumping CO2 into the atmosphere during the 50's and 60's the climate cooled for 25 Years until 1977 in which it switched and started warming at the same rate again like it was before when there was less CO2. And low and behold the warming stopped and appears to be on the brink of a cooling trend just like it does every other 30 years. I think people just want the truth and some how they sense that there is something wrong with the AGW theory, unlike me who knows its wrong. Our idea about how the world works is always wrong, its just a matter of how wrong it is, and more than a few percent of the recent warming being atrributed to CO2 is wrong, there is another explanation for it.
Because they reject basic understanding of science. It's really difficult to make non-science individuals to make them understand.
most people do not have any science education and get a lot of news from FOX "news" .
in America, there is also a strong anti-intellectual and anti-government segment of the public.
look how many American still believe the universe was created in 6 days, 6000 years ago. Very sad.
On the other hand a great many climate scientists are US citizens working in US research centers.
No evidence for man made warming at all.
Not one doom and gloom prediction has ever come true (you could do better by guessing)
Evidence of tampering with data.
UK met office figures show no warming for 16 years whilst co2 levels rose.
Blatant scientific lies such as ocean acidification.
No real idea how or which way the necessary feedback's go.
The ridiculous cure of taxation, letting grannie freeze in winter and moving jobs/industry to the far east.
The evidence is very much against this extremist anti human viewpoint, so it can be said with 99.9% certainty that it's not real.
Because to be skeptical is healthy, I am afraid that modern science is going the way of modern industrialization, it is becoming corrupt, there is more self interest than truth in what they are talking about, if they are truly convinced they would welcome skeptics instead of hounding them by calling them deniers and cranks.
A society where you have to toe the line and not ask awkward questions, is not one where truth will emerge.
Plus with no rise in global temperature's in the last 16yrs, it's not looking good for the AGW alarmist's.
Reject? Are we or are we not emerging from an Ice age? If in fact we are then we could assume we would experience warming, am I getting ahead of you here?. They taught us about our last ice age back in grade school, before electricity (or was it Independence?). If in fact we are emerging from an ice age that means (ignoring for the moment all the armloads of scientific printouts and gigabytes of Datasets) we are in fact warming and have been for several thousand years deviations in the climate history charts due to Sunspots and solar flares notwithstanding. We even had the "Little Ice age" due to thermohaline ocean current anomalies in the 1300-1700 era, a natural function of desalinization due to glacial melting due to natural "warming," The Vostok Co2 ice core analyses and subsequent Tschumi-Stauffer climate studies show clearly we have cold hot cycles and their accompanying Co2 variations on 100,000 year intervals. Milankovich elliptical orbit effects are causing these Hot/Cold cycles. The integration of sunspot and solar flare contribution to climate change just adds more humps and bumps to the graphs and more snakes to the prediction barrel. Providing a climate OVERVIEW reaching back over 6 millions of years tells the real story, but we are now faced with arguments based on data going back less than 50,000 years, the Gore fraud, obscuring the long term picture exposed by old accepted scientific climate history methods. How can man have such a profound effect on the climate in only the past 300 years when normal climate cycles established 6 Million years ago are proceeding as scientifically predicted, the projected temperatures and Co2 values in the mean. That man may be contributing to this climate change is obvious, but the EXTENT to which he is contributing is most assuredly in question. No one to date has been able to address that issue with any degree of Certainty, just a lot of unfounded opinion and fear mongering. Several scientific sources sets the percentage of mans contribution to global greenhouse gas at less than 3%, casting some pretty serious doubts that any changes we make in our energy usage will cause any major change in existing Climate conditions, at least in the foreseeable future.
"Why do people reject global warming?"
often for exactly the same reasons that exactly the same people reject evolution ...... you know, the science that Republicans have to pretend to reject if they want to succeed in politics
I am just wondering why so many people take such a strong stand on not believeing that global warming is happening... I dont understand why they would?
Most of the people who reject AGW are American political conservatives. It's no coincidence.
First it's not global warming that people are rejecting, it's the belief that it's occuring and we are the cause being rejected.
I believe warming is occuring mainly due to natural causes for the simple fact that Natural Variability continues to interfere with predictions. I find it ignorant for scientist to pretend tree ring proxies are great as long as we don't have actual temperatures to compare them. I'm not too terribly happy with scientist who show poor moral character being happy someone was dead because they didn't agree with their theory. I find it hard to trust someone who would discuss ways to put a publication out of business for printing something they disagreed.
I have a problem with the science when 1 study claims, were it not for man's influence, the sun is responsible for 10% of the warming while a different study claims the answer is 40%.
Predictions of what is going to occur because of this warming are vague and ambiguious for a reason. Ice melting and sea level rise are easy ones, doesn't take a climate scientist to determine these are going to occur. It is laughable to buy into this vague ambiguous notion that bad weather is now our fault. It's even more laughable for someone to claim I'm a denier for failing to find the science in prediction of floods on flood plains or droughs in drought prone areas. It's reasonable for you to be emotionally influence by a devistating hurricane and to temporarily buy into the hype by the media into believing it's something new, it's ignorance when you don't realize that this is nothing out of the norm. But, changes in climate or weather are one thing, when warmons start trying to tell you the other effects of AGW is when you've got to through out logic and reason and forget every single thing that you know about why things occur. There simply is no end to the effects of AGW, it's as if someone said we need to group all the bad things that occur in the world and throw them under one theory.
While not a reason to reject global warming, it's hard to not atleast want to distance yourself from the warmon belief system.
"The oil industry rejects global warming because it sees clean energy as a threat to its profits." What a ridiculously conspiratorial notion even if it's true it's completely irrelevent, unless there are oil industry hit squads off killing everyone who's come up with a better way to create energy. Build a better mouse trap and the world will come pounding at your door. The paper bag industry saw plastic bags as a threat, horse and buggy industry saw the automobile as a threat, the mail industry saw email as a threat. This belief that innovation is hampered because those making a product are preventing it from occuring is simply ignorant.
"Some people are afraid that they will not be allowed to drive or to heat and light their homes, even though all thes things can be done with clean energy." WRONG! I could care less where my electricy comes from or what power source propels my vehicle.
"Some church leaders in the Bible belt reject global warming because many oil companies are headquartered in the Bible Belt and these church leaders love having 10% of oil industry profits in their offering buckets." We get it from both all sides with Warmons on this subject. From the atheist warmons we get the you don't believe in AGW because you believe in a God therefore your anti-science. From those dual faith warmon/christians we're told to believe religious leaders can't be trusted because they are corrupt and evil, and those who are of no faith and believes the science doesn't support the conclusion, then you are simply ignorant.
"The government wants to reject global warming because doing anything about it does not get votes." Hurray, the government, the source of all that is good and just and the best innovative solutions to the worlds problems. If only we got the government involved in solving our problems the world would be a better place.
My source of skeptism is based on the following questions I developed on my own. They are also born from a career as a technolgist and bolstered by the ill effect of bullied subjectivism from people whom in so many words, drunken by with power, profess the "debate is over, the decision is made, this is the cause, and this is what we'll do". Only to be dead wrong.
Contrary to the suppositions of other common auto-posers in the section
I believe in evolution
I believe we will gradually and someday relie much more if not completely on natural energy sources.
I do not listen to Fox, Kock brothers or all of the other common sources cited that can only lead to skeptesism.
**************************************...
It seems agreed by all scientists that the Earth has a long history of major temperature fluctuations (Ice Age to Warm Periods) of total global average temperature amplitude of around 10°C . Also, during these periods the global temperature seems to have somewhat stabilized for decades, centuries to a number of millennia with periodic oscillations on the order of 1 to 3°C.
1. How do we arrive at the conclusion that we are closer to the end of a warm period (temps expected to trend downward), as opposed to the beginning (temps expected to fluctuate upward naturally)? It seems the length of these peak dwells have varied significantly over the Earth’s climate history.
2. How do we arrive at the conclusion that temperatures are rising faster than ever before? It seems well agreed the temperature proxies of tree rings, ice cores, etc. are somewhat effective as a short term local general period temperature assessment but are also affected by other factors and do not show the year-to-year, decade to decade rate of change with a high degree of accuracy. This was proven out when tried to match out to contemporary data. So my question is if we can’t measure rate of change accurately from this data, how do we make the conclusion that recent global temperatures are rising faster than ever before?
3. If we are relatively close to a significant cold peak asperity in the present warm period (the agreed upon Little Ice Age), why shouldn’t we expect an upcoming peak heat asperity (upward trend line) in the next few years or decades and for that peak to be naturally caused?
But on the contrary what I believe to be occurring with a number of ardent believers and voices in AGW in the arena of climate science ideology is an example of the physiological application known as "Subjective Validation". This is a phenomenon in which it has been clinically proven that people will much more readily accept a statement to be factual, IF it can be tied to any personal actionable meaning or significance to them. This is also referred to as the Forer effect, that was used so effectively by P.T. Barnum. With AGW it is also a sell, because "We all can do something about it!" that you- know- who so masterfully exclaimed.
They don't believe in global warming because there is a natural warming and cooling cycle which exists. We already had an ice age, which means that we are heading towards a period of warming. We are naturally heading that way. The other reason why people don't believe, is because these global warming activists sound more like salesman for green products, than actual scientists.
That isn't to say global warming doesn't exist, as it certainly does. Its just questionable as to whether it is as bad as Al Gore, master salesman claims.
The most telling fact that persuades me to reject the global warming hypothesis is the fact that the very same group of people who push the idea that man is creating global warming are the same ones who fight against nuclear power, which is by far the most promising way to reduce greenhouse gases.
Because it's not true.
It has snowed in places where snow never happened before.
Prove that there is BEFORE you pick out pocket. No sane person wants to buy into a scam.
