How could you NOT believe in global warming?

[semaphore]

Don't think all to many people deny global warming, most of the discussion is whether how much mankind is responsible for this. Which is something totally different.

It's just goal post moving from denying global warming outright though. Because it is conclusively proven to be happening. Next they'll say "it'll cool by itself like magic." Then it'll be "we can;t stop it now, let's not bother".

[Fiddlesnarf]

narrow minded /
not looking at all the evidence around them.

oh sweet Irony

hey, if the end result of climate change is a decemeber were i dont have to turn on the furnace in canada, im all for it. snow SUCKS.

You must not have kids, or care about anyone but yourself.

[Granyala]

I don't believe a nuclear explosion creates much of anything apart from a butt ton of heat. Fallout you are alluding to is caused by irradiation of debris and surrounding matter kicked up in the initial blast.

I used fallout in a more general expression. You could substitute it for "consequences". Still irradiating our own sea food supply can't be beneficial to our health.

Don't think all to many people deny global warming, most of the discussion is whether how much mankind is responsible for this.

I think the most man can do in this regard is accelerate it. But not be the sole cause. Still acceleration of said process is bad enough. Most people don't realize how fragile earths ecosystem is. Lowering/increasing median ground temperature by a few °C will have severe repercussions.

[Eroginous]

Except that is absolutely, abundantly clear. We know green house gases cause warming. We know how to calculate the warming effect of green house gases. And we know how much green house gases we are pumping into the atmosphere.

Sure, that's something we can test in a lab, but on a global scale? You do realize that there is a giagantic gap between the data we get from ice cores in the arctic and temperature data from satellites, right? How big of a gap there is in the Co2 data between ice core measurements and the actual atmosphere? You see, the only really solid temperature information we have is from the last decade or so, when actual satellite resources were really dedicated to studying global temperatues. Everything else is a guesstimation at best, including ice core samples of Co2.

See, the earth has a huge surface area to cover, so taking ice cores from one part of the earth at near sea level, is not a static indicator of the actual amount of Co2 in the atmosphere on a global scale. Until we have instruments which can capture factual numbers on a global scale 24/7 in real time, and can collect that data over tens of thousands of years, then we won't know exactly what our contribution is. We just came off a glacial period about 12k years ago, and we honestly have no frame of reference to know what 'normal' is on earth, much less what the breaking point is.

[Deleted]

You're right - it's not true.

Aftonbladet is very doom and gloom when it comes to global warming.

[Deleted]

just look at (recorded) weather history, every time something odd happens (eg 30C september 2011 in uk) you can find similar thing happening YEARS back, they will say omg hottest summer in 30 years, aka 30 years ago it was even warmer, or the 11 feet of snow in 2007 in nyc, its just a cycle (or global warming, idk, its just an opinion)

[Shrouded]

Aftonbladet is very doom and gloom when it comes to global warming.

They are, but not nearly to the point you described. They mostly talk about melting polar ice and rising sea levels. But Aftonbladet isn't really what I'd call a credible news source anyway!

[tachycardias]

The skeptics aren't doubting that it's getting hotter. At least the educated ones.

The skeptics doubt whether the cause is actually increased CO2. This is for several reasons:
1. It is very difficult to prove causation, ie what is causing something. All evidence merely correlates increased CO2 with warming, which does not prove CO2 causes warmth.
2. There are several other plausible explanations- including the regular heat cycle which occurs every few decades.
3. Media/popular sensationalism. The populous like to state that every severe weather occurance is due to global warming- this is simply untrue. Sandy was not global warming- according to the National Weather Service, but everyone likes to assert that it was. There is also an element of recall bias. Recall bias means that you don't necessarily remember the timing or specifics of events in the past as well as you think, and when you compare them to the current events you attribute them to a certain cause.
4. Climate research says the changes would occur over the next several decades- not covering any of this stuff people claim now is due to it.

I'm fine with controlling emissions, being green, but I'm not sure that CO2 is the one we should worry most about.

[Deleted]

They are, but not nearly to the point you described. They mostly talk about melting polar ice and rising sea levels. But Aftonbladet isn't really what I'd call a credible news source anyway!

True, though I swear I saw some article where "professional scientists" said that Paris will be a desert before 2050.

I did compare sensationalist Swedish media to FOX News though, and Aftonbladet is the closest FOX News equalivent we have here. :P

[Riekul]

It's quite easy not to believe in global warming, as it is nearly impossible to prove that it is actually occurring. I assume that is the reason that most people these days call it climate change.

As for the OP, I moved to Wisconsin five years ago. The first year I was here there were record breaking snowfalls. The snow was piled everywhere. You couldn't see around the corner of an intersection because the snow would be piled eight feet high. Everyone told me how abnormal it was, and that it usually wasn't like that. The next year, more or less the same thing happened. Now, for the past few years the winters here have been more mild, or as most people would call them 'normal'. Be that as it may, you still have people blathering about global warming because we aren't getting as much snow as we did five years ago. It's weather, it is constantly changing.

On a side note, my wife has a master's degree in atmospheric science, so she is a meteorologist. She would tell you that we have not been recording the weather long enough to provide sufficient data to determine whether or not global warming is occurring. Also, due to the natural shifts in temperature that will happen regardless, it makes it very difficult to determine what is causing the changes.

[semaphore]

The skeptics doubt whether the cause is actually increased CO2. This is for several reasons:
1. It is very difficult to prove causation, ie what is causing something. All evidence merely correlates increased CO2 with warming, which does not prove CO2 causes warmth.

A working knowledge of thermodynamics prove this. As does any half decent university lab, where I'm told demonstration of greenhouse effect is very common.

2. There are several other plausible explanations- including the regular heat cycle which occurs every few decades.

No other explanation can account for the current increasing trend.

[Barnabas]

It's very easy to believe humans have an impact on the earth's climate. The population has swelled over the past 100 years and with each new person born the demand on resources grows. It's good at least some portion of the population of people are taking some initiative to at least try to reduce their footprint. The rest seem to be seeking some irrefutable proof to justify that it is happening or not rather than just simply reducing their impact on resources. I guess it's hard when humans have to compete on every level throughout their lives regardless of anything else going on around them if they choose to believe it or not.

[Lassira]

Because the world was convinced we were about to enter an ice age in the 60s/70s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

here, have a read

[Deleted]

A working knowledge of thermodynamics prove this. As does any half decent university lab, where I'm told demonstration of greenhouse effect is very common.


No other explanation can account for the current increasing trend.

I have read through this whole thread and posted a few times and can I say, you seem very "big headed" lots of people are giving while not proof, evidence that shows humans have a very low impact on "global warming" and you instantly say their wrong without offering evidence against them. You seem like a child that just won't let go of his "toy". The facts are that global temperatures are rising, however the facts are that the temperature at the moment is lower than normal, the sea levels are extraordinarily low, and the amount of impact humans have on the environment is extraordinarily low. He'll the amount of "farts" cows do (releasing methane) has a bigger impact than us, (but don't worry we're killing them ASAP for their tasty flesh omnomnom)

WE ARE CONTRIBUTING... But not much... For every scientific report saying that humans are the biggest contributor to global warming there is one, if not more saying that we are a tiny contributor.

[semaphore]

Because the world was convinced we were about to enter an ice age in the 60s/70s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

here, have a read

Here, read it yourself. The world wasn't convinced, stop pretending it was. This is an undead zombie super dead horse by now.

Concern peaked in the early 1970s, though "the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then"

A history of the discovery of global warming states that: While neither scientists nor the public could be sure in the 1970s whether the world was warming or cooling, people were increasingly inclined to believe that global climate was on the move, and in no small way.

---------- Post added 2012-12-11 at 03:04 PM ----------

WE ARE CONTRIBUTING... But not much... For every scientific report saying that humans are the biggest contributor to global warming there is one, if not more saying that we are a tiny contributor.

What credible scientific study says we're a "tiny contributor"? And there's this little fact that the IPCC reports have been explicitly endorsed by scientists worldwide. No major scientific body dispute its findings. No study which says "we are a tiny contributor", assuming you can find one, has been accepted like that.

[Deleted]

I believe in global warming.
I do not care about it.
I will not change my ways.

The simple fact is, the planet is screwed already. I refuse to change how I live when at 2-3 generations before me have been able to live as they please (more or less, excluding the effects of the varying wars, which just contributed to global warming anyway, so its not much different that everyone having a car). I have the right to pursue a career, drive to work every day, use all the damn appliances I want, buy a big house for my family of 3, eat as much food and waste as much food as I like. I have this right in part due to the place/time I was born of course, but it still remains. The only thing I time I take global warming into consideration is when looking for my place of work or a new home. Avoid coastal areas, or areas with rivers nearby. Find a home and place of work that is nicely above sea level. Anyone not doing that is dumb frankly.

I accept global warming, and the causes for it. And I am very comfortable with that.
Anyone who wants to preach about how people should change their ways and not use so much tech/reduce footprints, is firstly deluded that change will EVER happen on a global scale which is what is required, and really...GTFO the internet, as you are pollutinz the world with your computers!

[namelessone]

There are people who don't believe that the Earth is round. It basically all goes to the basic conspiracy theory mode of thinking, when you dismiss any evidence as fabrication or conspiracy to the point when nothing is a proof anymore.

[Jackmoves]

True, though I swear I saw some article where "professional scientists" said that Paris will be a desert before 2050.

I did compare sensationalist Swedish media to FOX News though, and Aftonbladet is the closest FOX News equalivent we have here. :P

All the evening newspapers is basically entertainment more then anything
I only really read them because they do a lot of sports coverage. For anything els I'd prefer the morning papers, who does publish quite a lot of good articles.

Expressen and Aftonbladet and whatever els there is, GT etc is not to be relied upon if you want good journalism(apart from sports that is, they do that quite well).

[Masark]

Because the world was convinced we were about to enter an ice age in the 60s/70s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

here, have a read

Where "the world"=="a few select news magazines that took a handful scientist's random musings and started screaming".

As for the general question of the title : "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.".

[Deleted]

Semaphore don't even talk about credible scientific reports when you just linked Wikipedia to "prove" ( /insert sarcasm) someone wrong. And I do believe someone linked sonething about humans only causing 1% of global warming to which you cried "Nu uh I say it's 4%". The media is the one causing the uproar about global warming, he'll I bet if you were around in the 1960's you'd be whining about global cooling, and well look where that theory is now (Wikipedia it as your so fond of it) we have too little data to even remotely accurately see whether or not global warming is occurring

I'd say more but unfortunately even writing small amounts and linking stuff is too difficult on my phone.