People (either side of an argument) tend to find it hard to 'accept' the others opinion. This question you could have easily asked regarding "non-believers/skeptics/deniers".
I think it is entirely okay that people don't 'believe' predictions, although personally I don't have the skils or knowledge to challenge their predictions. I agree that the arguments on these board focus too much on the science, especially considering the majority of us don't have the skills or knowledge to understand the complexities of the science.
The science (as far as we are concerned or should be concerned) is about highlighting the risks and likelihood of the risks (in regards to climate change). Therefore discussions should be more about how to mitigate the highly likely significant risks to our world (and society). Things such as renewable energy, nuclear energy and fossil fuel energies do need to be seriously looked at, and decisions made about how to more forward. Which option reduces the scientific risks, but also manages the economic, social, and other environmental risks? How do we measure the pros and cons of each?
I believe together only will solutions be found and instituted, and the way forward is to focus on the issues that unite us, and hopefully these work towards resolving the issues that divide us.
Because it's a lot easier to get people to act on a problem if they accept that it's *real*.
If you don't believe that AGW is real, then why shouldn't you buy a car that's a huge gas guzzler, if you can afford it? If you don't believe that AGW is real, then why should you vote for restrictions on coal-fired power plants, or subsidies for nuclear and renewable energy? Why not waste all the power that you can afford to? Why not buy cheap crap from China regardless of the environmental impact? And so on.
There are multiple solutions to AGW out there, and ultimately we'll probably need to use most of them. For example, I live somewhere that solar energy works pretty well, since it hardly ever rains and is close enough to the equator to have relatively long winter days. But since it's also a desert, it would be a poor candidate for production of most biomass energy. On the other hand, in most of Canada biomass energy makes more sense than photovoltaic solar.
But, most of them won't get off the ground if people like Maxx and Sagebrush (and many others like them) keep insisting that AGW is just a hoax, and refuse to spend any money on things like alternative energy.
Is it a myth that the polar ice caps are melting? That there is tons of freshwater being dumped into the oceans due to melting? That species are going extinct at an alarming rate? Or that global temperatures are rising from year to year? Those are things that are OBSERVED. These are not myths. I am well aware that the earths climate changes due to natural processes, but that should happen over a geologic time frame (tens of thousands to millions of years). These changes are being observed within our own lifetimes, which is scary. It makes me sick to think that people don't care about our planet, and preserving it for our children. FYI, burning of fossil fuels DOES release CO2 into the atmosphere, which traps energy from the sun, which causes the warming (the greenhouse effect). And people are trying to reduce fossil fuel consumption, by building electric and hybrid cars, increasing the use of other power sources (solar energy, hydroelectric dams, geothermal heating, etc.). The problem is, so many people point fingers at the "hippy/liberal types", calling them radicals for trying to adjust the way we live. All these people are trying to do is make our way of life more sustainable, so that we don't destroy our planet. It is so important to believe in global warming/climate change, because if you don't, it will be the future generations that suffer. I apologize for the long post, but I am really passionate about this issue, and I hope that you will go online, and try to read and understand some of the literature (scientific journal articles) before you label this as "pseudo-science".
Belief is for religions and politics. There is no place for belief in science. Those who believe need to convert those who don't because in order to reduce the production of CO2, the believers will need to convince others that the life blood of their economic way of life has to be bled out like some throwback from the 18th century. Like the 18th century bloodletters, their cure is worse than the disease.
I find the harshest posts come almost exclusively from those who not only do not believe the science is correct, but actually think it is an intentional hoax to con us out of our money.
Because we must be made to believe in and support the Globalist Agenda, which dissolves national sovereignty and will eventually enslave us all. Beware.
I don't think we're obliged to believe in it? Are we? Everyone has freedom to do what they like and to believe what they believe in. :o
Economic externalities and tragedy of the commons, of course. But I wonder if you asked why Wolfowitz, Cheney and Bush needed other people to go affect regime change in Iraq. Why did they have to convert hundreds of thousands of soldiers to their religion instead of just working to reduce terrorism and WMD?
there is no global warming
Most posters who are believers harshly criticize others because they don't accept the "science" of predictions, and since very few of these predictions have shown to be true, it's not possible for anyone with an above average IQ to accept this pseudo-science. Instead of actually reduce co2 by building more nuclear power plants, converting cars to natural gas instead of gasoline, it's more important for the believers to convert "skeptics" as they call them into believers as well. Why do the believers need to convert the deniers over to their religion instead on just working to reduce co2?
