Many people don't actually follow the sources, and really wouldn't know how to assess them even if they did. They go by their intuitions and preconceptions, and then find sources to support what they feel is right--confirmation bias.

This usually takes the form of finding authority figures who support their intuitions and preconceptions, and who conveniently provide ready-made arguments and slogans which then circulate among like-minded people, and are repeated online and various other fora.

The primary motivation for not accepting the climate science--thus seeking and agreeing with a few dissenting positions--seems to be based on a dislike of the political and economic proposals to solve climate change. I can't know this for sure, but it seems to be so judging by the sort of arguments I've seen used, and the ideological resistance to what the solutions may entail.

I think in large part, it is a facet of the human condition. Our species generally resists uncertainty and upheaval. Climate change is also very nuanced and complex, with some things that just aren't that intuitive and seem incongruous to many (e.g. colder winters, Antarctic sea ice extending father) and it all lends itself to a cynical and defensive mindset in regard to climate science.

Most people who are informed on this issue agree that man has an impact on many aspects of the environment including burning fossils fuels and increasing CO2 in the atmosphere and thus increasing the greenhouse effect.

The real discussions are how much of an impact this has and would continue to have, what the predicted effects (both positive and negative) would be in various temperature increase scenarios and if any policy can have an actual net positive effect (i.e. cost vs. benefit).

First of all, you note that you've gotten several "it's not happening, or it's not our fault" replies. When considering global warming, I agree with these folks.

1. You could look up what universities say. They have a reputation to uphold.

2. You could look up what various scientific organizations say. They also have a reputation to uphold.

Look at which posters around here seem to agree with the reputable organizations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warm...

"The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries."

https://www.google.com/#q=scientific+org...

https://www.google.com/#q=universities+g...

So we understand the truth of what's happening, why would anyone at all think differently?

If your state mines a lot of coal, and your income depends on the coal industry, it's not in your immediate interest to have the US restrict the amount of coal that can be burned.

http://www.nma.org/pdf/c_production_stat...

If your state produces a lot of oil and your income is dependent on the money from the oil industry ... the same.

http://voices.yahoo.com/top-ten-oil-prod...

Our economy really does depend on transportation. Transportation uses at least 30% of the oil we burn, and probably much more. Any effort to reduce burning oil will cause the price of gasoline to increase.

There are quite a number of folks who are not well off, and will be hurt by raising gas prices. There are other folks who think that they deserve to pay less taxes, and less for everything that they buy. (Otherwise known as greedy ..... )

Finally, the conservative "news" media keeps saying that asking Americans to drive less, or raising the price of gasoline, is "unAmerican". Far to many of us listen to stuff like that and believe what they say. AND, unfortunately, with those misguided views of the country, they all get to vote.

First you will find that most of us "deniers" do not question Global Warming when the data supports it. We also do not question Global Cooling when the data supports that.

We most of us "deniers" question is AGW or man's role and/or impact on the global climate system.

Here we all more or less readily acknowledge that man has some impact. However those of us that are called "deniers" do NOT believe and have not fond that the data supports the concept the mankind is or even can be a significant driver on the earth climate system. We do not accept that mankind can do by accident what many have tried to figure out how to do through deliberate action, control or significantly impact the weather/climate of a given region much less the entire world.

We "deniers" also understand enough science to know that CO2 is a GHG but at current concentrations is not capable of doing what many alarmists claim. The atmosphere is saturated with CO2. CO2 follows a degrading algorithmic curve in its ability to drive additional warming of the climate.

"Deniers" also know that due to the above the entire concept of AGW depends on what is called a cascade effect. This is why you hear so much about tipping points etc. We "deniers" see no evidence of said cascade and without said evidence we do not accept it beyond a hypothetical scenario.

You do NOT base policy on hypothetical scenarios...

I do not read minds, but from what I have observed in this section of Yahoo Answers

There are a number of "young earth creationist" here who like to advocate that their god is in control of everything. (if that god existed and was in control it would also be responsible for all the human suffering and deaths) They will deny all science that proves anything else, from the age of the earth, to evolution to the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. You name if it contradicts their holy books and science often does, then the science must be wrong. Sadly they will use any excuse and often resort to association fallacies and lying.

Then there are those who believe that the free market will solve all ills and that anything we do collectively in order to stop companies and individuals dumping their waste products into the environment is bad. Some will even go as far as to advocate for the removal of all protection for the environment and any regulatory agency such as the EPA. Some will even deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Yet others will claim that it is a conspiracy by thousands of scientist all over the world to bring about a tyrannical one world government and/or to persuade politicians to raise taxes on every one, including the scientist.

There are a few true skeptics here, I am a natural skeptic and I accept the scientific consensus. I just happen to think that when you are not reasonably sure, don't do anything. Just like when I cross the street and I am not sure if I can cross safely I will not cross even when time is money. In the case of AGW (which is proven, the debate is how bad will it get) that means do not dump additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

However Yahoo Answers is hardly representative of the rational world and I suggest you start of with Wikipedia. [1] If you want a list of all the arguments that are used in the denial, then skeptical science dot com keeps a comprehensive list of all the arguments. [2]

As one who doesn't believe in Global Warming, I feel that it is a cycle that has been going around for thousands of years. The world is extremely hot, then everything melts, then an ice age comes and freezes it all over again. The Earth is (hopefully) at its hottest state, and the next beginning of am ice age is planned to happen anywhere from 2014-2028. Therefore the Earth will refreeze and we'll be left with a normal Earth.

Yes, our emissions from cars, boats, etc. are contributing to "global warming" and increasing the speed of global warming, but the ice age should cover it all up.

Objective minded people do not believe in AGW for the following three major reasons:

1) The scientific method is not adopted in the millions of papers churned out on the subject. Quite simply ALL aspects of scientific discussion on a subject need to be investigated to objectively determine root causes. The emphasis in climate change papers is to focus entirely on anthropogenic causes and deny impacts from natural causes.

2) The IPCC is a Untied Nations body whose members are chosen based on a political agenda rather than a desire to seek scientific truth.

3) Funding for climate change comes from the Rothschild dynasty that are the principle family behind the New World Order for one world Government. Follow the money and this is what you will find. Consequently, and in simple terms, anthropogenic climate change (AGW) research is funded and therefore derived by access to a printing press to print money, whereas funding for climate change based on natural causes is denied this form of funding. This funding bias prevents any meaningful scientific truth ever coming about.

There are a multitude of other reasons including ridicule to any form of dissent or disagreement with the pseudoscience churned out by the IPCC. Basically, the elite want to TAX THE AIR THAT YOU BREATHE and CONTROL/REGULATE THE ENTIRE ENERGY INDUSTRY. This is the AGW political agenda that they want the IPCC to impose that has no basis in science at all. AGW scientists are generally paid through ongoing, additional funding to write what their political masters want them to say - whether they realise it or not. The IPCC only approve what satisfies the political desires of the masters that fund the body. Sad but real!

Everything that man does has an impact on the earth. Global warming/cooling whatever name that is currently in use, has exaggerated and manipulated the data from the beginning. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. They still are using manipulated data to make their points. That is the biggest issue. When on doesn't tell the truth, it cast a shadow over everything that follows. If they simply stuck to the facts, had honest debates on what was real and measurable. It would be a totally different conversation. The other part of this issue has to do with the arrogance of some, to actually believe, that we have the power to control climate change. Even if we did, any actions would have to be on a global scale. Current positions are to punish, to weaken the US economically while others, will not or can not beheld to the same standards. Whatever the US and the small number of other countries can do, is not nearly enough to actually offset much of anything.

AGW has become a war of catch-phrases due to the political nature of the "solutions". There is warming, but it is not the type that will lead to a climate apocalypse. The truth is somewhere in the middle, but the middle is not eye-catching news. Even asking if you "believe" in AGW becomes a yes or no question that all but eliminates the truth.

Does my saying that I agree that AGW is occurring necessarily mean I agree with the dire predictions??? Most people would interpret a belief in AGW as the same thing. Does my statement that I disagree with the dire prediction mean that I think nothing will occur?

So the answer to your question is your question. People like the simple yes or no, black or white, left or right answers. I would like to say that the world is filled with greys, but that is not even true. The world is filled with color. Much of this debate becomes an argument if orange is darker than blue because people can't even agree on what means what.

Ecit:

I have to thank Kropt for demonstrating my point. The "error bars" are 1-10 degrees of warming in the next 100 years. He absurdly think he has made a point against my claim. When people like him arrogantly proclaim their superiority or the inferiority of those who disagree, I have to laugh. BTW, these error bars do not even take into account all areas of uncertainty.

Global warming is real and it is happening. The earth has been steadily warming since the end of the little ice age in the first half of the 19th century. During the medieval age before that the earth was warmer than it is now.

AGW is a fraud being perpetrated to advance an agenda to implement a new totalitarian world order under the guise of UN agenda 21. The draft proposals of the failed 2009 climate summit in Copenhagen was essentially UN agenda 21 as a binding international treaty. UN agenda 21 will do nothing for the environment.

So I had a discussion with someone about Global Warming and how a lot of people deny that we play a part in G.W. I want to hear what others have to say on the subject. :)

(READ BEFORE POSTING)

Yes, our planet does go through it's natural cycle of warming/cooling but because of "MAN," we are rapidly increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and thus creating the "Greenhouse Effect."

So, do you believe in G.W and if you do, why do you believe people disclaim it?

Some people are just stuck in their ways and don't like to believe the truth.

For example, loyal League of Legends fans don't want to accept that Dota 2 is better. Some people just don't change.

The scientific fact is a doubling of CO2 (perhaps by 2050) will produce 3.7 watts per sq meter of warming, which equates to 1 degree C warming (hardly dangerous and probably beneficial) to make it scary they have added positive feedbacks loss of ice reflecting sunlight and an increase in atmospheric water vapor, However simple commonsense tells us any slight form of warming will produce the same feedbacks (not just CO2) so if it could happen it would already have happened, when we had warming periods in the past.

I will probably get a lot of thumbs down for this...

I am one of the people who believe that humans are not the main causes of global warming. Honestly, I believe it is more of a political hype. I believe that the earth is going through climate change, as it has been for about 4.5 billion years. Many scientist also do not believe in man-made global warming. A lot of the leaders in support of the theory of man-made global warming are actually politicians. If you look at the temperatures from the earth's long history instead of just since humans started making machines, you would see that the earth has been colder than average. The earth is due for a warming period. I'm not saying it is good, it is just normal for the earth to get warmer. In fact, in the 1970's everyone was worried about global freezing.

Man-made global warming is a theory. That means no one knows the truth yet. I doubt they even have enough evidence to prove that man is rapidly causing global warming since the industrial age so far is only a small percentage of the earth's history. Even though I do not believe in man made global warming, it does not bother me when people believe it, so long as they have done some actual research on it, instead of just listening to whatever they hear from a politician's mouth (example Al Gore and his ridiculous charts). I believe there are some true facts and even some benefit to believing in global warming. There is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but scientists can only prove it is a correlation to global warming not an actual causation. I also believe that pollution needs to go down, and if it decreases because people believe in global warming, then it might not be bad to believe in it. However some things that are supposed to "reduce global warming" are not beneficial, like adding more ethanol to gas, are just stupid.

Sorry I wrote so much, and it is probably not the answer you were hoping for. Before you completely dismiss someone's side make sure you do research of your own. Until better evidence is produced in the favor of man-made global warming, I stick by my stance because I have done research and believe it is right. The best thing to do is keep an open mind. Have a great day!

Because it is NOT TRUE! Not in the context it is being used by the libs.

It has been proven that it is part of natural cycle. It is now in the downturn of the NATURAL cycle, and fears of another ice age are rising.

There is no man made global warming. Temperature averages have moderated over the past 15 years. So there is no natural excess warming.

The biggest problem is there is not enough empirical date to draw any conclusions. Not enough temps are being taken over enough area for long enough.

Being skeptical of something isn't the same thing as believing or not believing. Belief is something better left to politics and religion and has no place in science. When people claim to believe in man caused warming they are believing in something that isn't even well defined. It is belief for belief's sake. I don't feel the need to believe. I prefer to weigh the evidence and then determine what I think is most likely true.

because they listen to conservative talk show hosts