How could you NOT believe in global warming?

[chocobo606]

i'm pretty sure the only people who don't believe in global warming are the people not intelligent enough to comprehend it, and it's really not that difficult. I suppose that's just one of many reasons, another would probably be "well, my company makes billions a year off of emissions, and I don't feel no temperature risin' every year i'm on dis here urf."

but hey, maybe all of these scientists and all of this data that people have posted and has already been known is just some huge SCARE by hippies to get big, greedy companies to cut down on their emissions... 'cause all we care about is bringing the big guy down.

[Deadvolcanoes]

infact here about global colling going on based on NOAA data for past 15+ years.

In fact....no.

This is how you perceive things in your global cooling bubble world that you live in:




This is how things are in realville, also known as reality:



In other words. Yeah. The earth is not cooling. It's getting warmer. Unless you want to cherry-pick data. In which case it is cooling.

[Spectral]

i'm pretty sure the only people who don't believe in global warming are the people not intelligent enough to comprehend it

There's no evidence for a causal linkage between low IQ and climate change denialism. In fact, more intelligent and informed conservatives are more likely to be deniers.

[skrump]

Most people will agree that climate change -- the increased average temperatures with more severe weather -- is occuring.

Not everyone will agree that climate change is caused by global warming -- mankind's activities on earth are causing climate change.

That is the difference that many people don't understand in this debate. It's not that people debate climate change, it's that people don't believe humans are causing it.

I wanna know what physics has to say about it, I mean I can put a lid on a boiling pot of water and pretty much disprove the theory of mankind having a major role in global climate change simply because of how heat dispersion works and knowing that containing heat creates pressure, not only that but due to science I also know what happens when you have two opposing heat sources, in this case mankind being one with the sun being the other.

[PricklyBear]

It's simple. People who can convince themselves that magical, floating, invisible deities exist can pretty much convince themselves of anything, including discounting the overwhelming evidence in support of global warming.

[Grummgug]

There's a lot of reasons to not believe in global warming.

1. Over my lifetime, I've seen endless amounts of what I term "hot science". Hot science is where some people do some studies and draw some conclusions. Then years later, they look back and realize they all got it wrong. The problem is, confirmation bias prevents people from making adjustments. Some areas where I've seen it include: miracle diet "superfoods", TED talks (this thing is nothing but a bunch of hot science if I ever saw it). When I was a kid, I remember DIRE threats from global warming activists, telling us the oceans would all be dead by the year 2000 if we didn't radically change course. It was a complete farce as it turns out. Why would anyone who lived through those times not, at the very least, be extremely skeptical about the claims being put forth now? For us who grew up in the 1980s, global warming has been some sort of imminent threat for the past, oh, 30 years...

2. The fact that it has become COMPLETELY politicized. The worst thing that could have happened to the global warming movement was to get Al Gore as the face of the debate. That is going to cause many democrats to blindly accept whatever is said at face value, and many republicans to blindly dismiss everything at face value. Now we don't have a chance at honest debate about the issues, just talking points. The entire debate is now stigmatized and as a consequence people will avoid the issue altogether.

3. I don't see it as a threat. The fact is, fossil fuels are on their way out, and will be replaced by solar in two decades. When that happens, carbon emissions will fall through the FLOOR, and so even if global warming alarmists are correct, technology will fix the problem quite soon.

[Spectral]

I also know what happens when you have two opposing heat sources, in this case mankind being one with the sun being the other.

Did this really just happen?

[Deadvolcanoes]

I wanna know what physics has to say about it, I mean I can put a lid on a boiling pot of water and pretty much disprove the theory of mankind having a major role in global climate change simply because of how heat dispersion works and knowing that containing heat creates pressure, not only that but due to science I also know what happens when you have two opposing heat sources, in this case mankind being one with the sun being the other.

You might find the work of Richard Muller, a Berkeley Physicist, and former climate change skeptic, compelling.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...iC1L_blog.html

---------- Post added 2012-12-11 at 12:47 AM ----------

Did this really just happen?

Yeah I don't get that at all. What is he trying to say? How do heat sources oppose each other, and what is the result? More heat? I'm confused.

[Abysal]

I think everyone with half a brain can admit the climate is changing. The problem is that we have far too small a sample size relative to Earth's history to statistically prove causation and the timing of our genuinely accurate data happened to coincide with the end of a mini-ice age.

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

As far as we can tell, we're hotter than ever, but data prior to the 20th century is increasingly unreliable the further back you go. If someone went back and showed that we were far hotter than we are now 2500 years ago, I wouldn't expect the man-made climate change crowd to instantly give up their position and in the same way it's unrealistic to expect the skeptics to give up their position without providing a sample size that's greater than 1% of human history and 0.000002% of Earth's history (or whatever it'd be).

[Spectral]

Yeah I don't get that at all. What is he trying to say? How do heat sources oppose each other, and what is the result? More heat? I'm confused.

I very much want to know now. He said he knows... why did he leave us all hanging?

[Grizzly Willy]

Interesting seeing all of these global warming deniers linking articles that are either false, or even better, prove them wrong.

[Vaengence]

You might find the work of Richard Muller, a Berkeley Physicist, and former climate change skeptic, compelling.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...iC1L_blog.html

---------- Post added 2012-12-11 at 12:47 AM ----------



Yeah I don't get that at all. What is he trying to say? How do heat sources oppose each other, and what is the result? More heat? I'm confused.

Richard Muller was never a skeptic. This is Richard Muller in 2008:

“If Al Gore reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion – which he does, but he’s very effective at it – then let him fly any plane he wants.”

And this was Michael Mann's response to the claims Mr Muller made at the same time as declaring himself a converted Skeptic.

My view is that Muller’s efforts to promote himself by belittling the collective efforts of the entire atmospheric/climate research community over several decades, though, really does the scientific community a disservice. Its great that he’s reaffirmed what we already knew. But for him to pretend that we couldn’t trust this entire scientific field until Richard Muller put his personal stamp of approval on their conclusions is, in my view, a very dangerously misguided philosophical take on how science works. It seems, in the end–quite sadly–that this is all really about Richard Muller’s self-aggrandizement

I would be careful pointing to the work of someone who clearly has an agenda which trumps science.

[Grizzly Willy]

Prove the corruption then.

[Vaengence]

Interesting seeing all of these global warming deniers linking articles that are either false, or even better, prove them wrong.

I have already seen you make claims in this thread unsupported by science, just as the other side does. This works both ways you know.

[Grizzly Willy]

I have already seen you make claims in this thread unsupported by science, just as the other side does. This works both ways you know.

Except the science agrees. The fact that 97% of qualified scientists agree means quite a bit more than sensationalist garbage.

[s_bushido]

Tide goes in, tide goes out, never a miscommunication. You can't explain that.

[Vaengence]

Except the science agrees. The fact that 97% of qualified scientists agree means quite a bit more than sensationalist garbage.

First of all, agrees with what? I never replied with any of your quotes where I said you were posting unscientific points of view. I expected you to ask me "when?" or something similar, instead you shifted the argument over to a generalization of Climate Science and I believe Global Warming but as you have not specific I have no idea what you are referring to.

Oh, and I would drop using the 97% of scientists agree. This is the Climate Science equivalent of an Urban Legend - there is a gem of truth buried in it, but the truth in it actually does not support your argument so by using it, you unwittingly show no understanding of your own argument.

[Grizzly Willy]

I was addressing your false equivalency. Apologies if I don't follow your expectations.

Suppose I should ask my professor why she's lying to me then. Can you point me to the information where that's false? That the majority of researchers agree that global warming exists and is man made?

[Vaengence]

I was addressing your false equivalency. Apologies if I don't follow your expectations.

Suppose I should ask my professor why she's lying to me then. Can you point me to the information where that's false? That the majority of researchers agree that global warming exists and is man made?

False Equivalency? You made that leap not me.

Lying to you about what? This is an enormous topic with a lot of different areas. What is false? What are you arguing? Even skeptics agree that Global Warming exists and that man contributes to it. What particular section are we disagreeing with? You just like many on your side of this argument cannot explain what it is they are arguing. You are arguing a point of view where many of the "sources" come from the media, politicians and green peace activists and when asked to be more specific, the answers become more generalized.

I bet $100.00 you have absolutely no idea what it is I am arguing, but because I pointed out several instances where you are mistaken I am immediately dismissed. This is how the vast majority of people discussing this topic behave and it is why arguing just becomes a useless exercise. If you cannot formulate specific arguments, either through lack of knowledge or indifference, then just leave the topic alone.

[nogard64]

Most people will agree that climate change -- the increased average temperatures with more severe weather -- is occuring.

Not everyone will agree that climate change is caused by global warming -- mankind's activities on earth are causing climate change.

That is the difference that many people don't understand in this debate. It's not that people debate climate change, it's that people don't believe humans are causing it.

EXACTLY!

there is no argument from looking at the data that there has been a trending upward swing in temps. But the question is it man made? is it even CO2 caused? Because how can it be man caused, when if you looked at the history of earth, there has been constant warming and cooling of the planet?

And lets say it is man caused, it is CO2 caused? What real fair, reasonable solution do we have? We can't all ride bicycles and drive priuses, is just not realistic at this point in human history and human development.

I'm just really tired of the liberal freak out fest by the left, using this issue to gain political power and ascend into power by fear mongering. We need real science and real solutions.

BTW if you want to attack me call me names, let me just tell you I drive a tiny little gas sipping sedan, and I recycling everything, I'm pretty much a vegetarian. So be careful when you judge. I'm just a reasonable person who question everything and is still skeptical.