I realize there are some honest skeptics that feel the evidence doesn't add up. But all too often a typical response (at least on Yahoo here) from a denier is that 'only deluded brainwashed snowflake idiots cannot see it is a scam'. They seldom explain just WHY it is a scam; they just say it is a scam...
I feel bad for the ones on here who answer saying that the reason is because it's fake. Climate Change is a very real issue, and yes, it is negatively affecting our beautiful Earth. But, it is my personal belief that many skeptics are not into the enviromental scene, and then view this as some sort of scam to get us distracted from real issues. But, it's not. I know many people don't believe that environmentalists are reliable, but really, we always have the best interest of what we are protecting in mind. We want a safe, happy world that can be lived in and won't be necessary to evacuate within the next hundred or so years. We want to help, but people aren't willing to listen. In a few years, when the damage will be unfixable, their families and loved ones will be indangered. Even if it may be a scam, why not get off of Non-renewables now while we still have them? We could have just enough time to preserve it and hop onto something else before it's too late.
Because whatever is or is not going on with climate, there is no doubt that the politicians are seizing the opportunity to take advantage of the fear and the situation. Did money for education ever fix schools? No it didn't, committed parents and teachers do. Will taxing the people to death result in more money for the environment, and will that money even GO towards easing climate change? HAH! Guess again. Our state just ran out of money and their talking about increasing the tax on tobacco which is already over 50% the cost of the product. That's illegal! You don't tax like that. But these m'f'ers are doing just that. And I wouldn't be surprised if they seeded clouds like China did before the Olympics in Bejing, or pumped out water from the Colorado River under ground to make a drought, to justify new laws, taxes, crisis...crisis gives them revenue. When they spend too much or use our money unscrupulously, they cry for more and make a reason to tax us. It's like a kid who spent their allowance on candy when they were supposed to use it to buy lunch at school, and so asks (and gets!) more money from his parents. There is NO accountability for these guys ripping us off. They are going to take our money and DO NOTHING to help ease climate change, so why give them the satisfaction of agreeing with them? WE didn't do anything anyway. It was THEIR GROSS NEGLIGENCE and lack of regulations on industry poison and air pollution. They screw us over by giving us messed up air and water, a messed up weather system, and now we the victims pay again? No, I don't think so. The only thing that's man-made are the damn chemtrails, cloud seeding and industrial pollution. It doesn't matter if the little people down here deny it or not. We'll get taxed eventually all the same.
There are basically three different aspects to 'global warming'.
The first is the 'physical science' basis for concluding that the planet is warming and that we are responsible. There is no real scientific argument against that conclusion, nor has there been for about 40 years now. Just about every scientific organisation accepts the basic science. So too do the majority of the population in most countries, including the US. Most US citizens accept the planet is warming. Most also accept that humans are partially responsible, although 'how much is due to humans' is still publicly debated in that nation. Only a small but loud die-hard minority claim that humans have nothing whatsoever to do with it. Personally, I simply ignore anyone who claims that humans have nothing to do with global warming, putting them in the same category as people who claim the earth is actually flat, or that waving crystals around somehow magically heals you. The evidence to the contrary is so overwhelming that these people can be classified, legitimately, as 'deniers'.
The second aspect is the question of 'how will global warming affect us'. This is where there is a large degree of misinformation and hype on both sides. Scientists try to perform investigations and draw conclusions, and ultimately will publish those conclusions and projections. They will argue their case, while explaining the methodologies used, the assumptions being made, and the analytics they are using. Other scientists will read those papers, agree or disagree with some of what is being said, will point out issues with the methodologies, the experimental conclusions. And the process results in new analysis, new models, new projections, and so forth. The point is, at any given moment in time, science is constantly evaluating and adjusting. It's fluid, not static.
The problem comes about when non-scientists start digging around. Journalists, most of whom are humanities graduates with no scientific training, will find interesting papers and then write an article. They'll pick and choose the papers they want to highlight, with the result that they will sensationalize certain conclusions. For example, a scientist might publish a paper showing that plants will respond positively to global warming. A journalist decides a positive benefit isn't going to capture the imagination of readers, and so goes with a 'arctic will be ice free by year X' paper instead. That's much more alarming! And will get more hits on their media outlet's website.
Similarly, skeptics and warmists will go digging. They'll pull up papers that they think support their side. Some of these papers may be well out-of-date in terms of the scientific debates and musing that have gone on in the background. The conclusions in the scientific papers they're pulling may be superseded in other papers. But they'll cherrypick the ones they want.
The point is that it is relatively easy for people to show a) papers that demonstrate a catastrophic impact of global warming; b) papers that show modest impacts; c) papers that show beneficial consequences; d) papers that made predictions that turned out to be wrong; e) papers that made predictions that turned out to be right and also, if they want, to they can use these changing conclusions to try and make some point about how 'the scientists disagree' or 'the conclusions keep changing' in order to cast doubt on the scientific process being undertaken. Basically then, anyone not a scientist who has been keeping up with the historical legacy of scientific thought, can find any 'evidence' for any position they want to hold.
The third aspect is the question of 'what are we going to do about it'. For some, like me, tackling global warming is an opportunity. For others, it is a potentially damaging course of action in terms of economics. This takes us into the realm of politics.
To bring it together then, what I think is that people are making decisions based on multiple aspects. Skeptics are skeptical, not just because of the 'scientific evidence', but because they have combined a political persuasion with a fear of the economic consequences and with the cherrypicked evidence. Alarmists have done pretty much the same to reach the polar opposite conclusion.
The reality, of course, is in the middle. Global warming is happening. We're responsible. It will benefit some and be detrimental to others. The course of action we take should be based on what the scientists project, with the caveat that we constantly adjust our response based on the latest evidence. This is how we perform risk management on every other issue. What both extremes are trying to do is change the risk management strategy to either 'do nothing till we're certain' or 'do everything now before it's too late'.
I watched the first hearing and the democrats made drama queens of themselves for a false cause
I don't deny man-made climate change and most skeptics don't. They are simply skeptical that the change is dangerous and or catastrophic. What is the real reason you believe? I don't believe because I'm not a member of that cult.
Lack of understanding. Was walking a few winters ago when I overheard some guys saying how climate change was fake since there were no palm trees around- in Maine in January.
There are a number of real and important reasons.
Here is one that gets far less attention than it deserves. The original myth of the evil left-wing eco-freak conspiracy cabal of mainstream science:
This myth is permanently embedded in the chromosomes of almost every hard core anti-science cultist denier who posts here, where it is taken as a gospel truth so important that it tramples over almost every form of basic honesty and common sense.
P.S. "People believe what they want in spite of the evidence" is not really an answer to the question, but it clearly plays a decisive role in the behavior of homo denialis.
Fear. They are afraid that if we stop burning fossil fuels, that we won't be able to drive cars, or heat or light our homes, though all these can be done with clean energy sources, such as solar, hydro and nuclear power.
No unambiguous evidence exists of dangerous interference in the global climate caused by human-related CO2 emissions. In particular, the cryosphere is not melting at an enhanced rate; sea-level rise is not accelerating; and no systematic changes have been documented in evaporation or rainfall or in the magnitude or intensity of extreme meteorological events.
Any human global climate signal is so small as to be nearly indiscernible against the background variability of the natural climate system. Climate change is always occurring.
Global warming is a business, not a science. Keeping the scam alive brings in billions of dollars a year to research institutions.
'Cause it isn't real ??????
Many people just don't have the time to explain everything to half-wits and suckers.
This is all I'm going to do for you:
Ask yourself this question:
Do you think that the climates on our 4.5 billion-year-old planet had never changed - sometimes drastically - until now?
Now, if that one question doesn't provide you the epiphany you need in order to know human-caused climate change is a hoax, then no wonder no one else has the patience for you!
Climate science is not a science, and the people behind it are not scientists. But they do know that they can obtain grant money by spewing brainless global warming propaganda.
Cap and trade. I don't believe in cap and trade. It is a tax, very simple. The climate is changing, and you can't stop it. You want me to pay another tax, which is wrong to me. Environmentalists have protested against nuclear power, and now they accept it. Have you heard of 3 mile island or Chernobyl in Russia? Where are you going to store the radioactive waste. Natural gas requires pipelines. Pipelines leak, they're combustible, and they explode.The Permafrost is thawing in Alaska and Canada causing co2. The oceans produces co2. The list goes on and on and on.
a severe lack of understanding basic science
You are assuming they are reasoning, that is often not the case, most are just reacting based on their core beliefs.
In the case of young earth creationists, they believe their holy books are books of science. Sagebrush even stated that his god has a hand on the (global) thermostat. (This would make his god responsible for all the heat and cold related deaths.) They deny evolution and the age of the earth as well. You can easily spot them because they hate people like Bill Nye because he trounced their cult leader, Ken Ham, in a debate regarding the age of the earth and evolution. (Ken Ham himself realized he was loosing , got desperate and started lying)
In the case of Libertarians, the extremists amongst them believe that government should not regulate pollution in any shape or form and the market should be controlling it. (And we, the consumer, do not buy our products from polluters.) Now there are of course more realistic libertarians who do accept that governments can and unfortunately should regulate negative externalities like pollution. The fossil fuel industry is trying to persuade them that global warming is not a negative externality. You can recognize those libertarians when they claim CO2 is mostly beneficial.
There are also people who have an unhealthy level of distrust for government. Governments have let the majority of the people down in favor of big business. Trump recognized this and fed them the BS they wanted to hear, the problem for him is the he now has to govern and one of the first things he did was trying to lower the tax rates for the rich (like himself) even further. The next thing he is trying to do is gut environmental and other regulation aimed to protect people from the greed of (some of) the elite. Look at Net(work) Neutrality for a clear example of corporate greed. (I had to add the work in brackets, to get around the yahoo sensors) It is a good thing to check our governments, just look at the second Iraq war which was based upon lies. But the situation has become more and more ridiculous. You can recognize those people because they talk about AGW being a scam and climate gate.
While there is also an overlap of them when it comes to AGW, young earth creationists and libertarians are diametrically opposed. Young earth creationist want to restrict individual freedom, like who you can marry, drugs etc, while libertarians see individual freedom, and by extension, corporate freedom as the greatest good. They have found a common enemy in AGW science. That is why you never see Raisin Caine go after sagebrush for his repeated lies, nor do you see Sagebrush go after Raisin Caine, who does accept that CO2 is causing warming.
If you pay attention it is really fun to watch them. The conspiracy theories are hilarious.
1. It is not happening a 0.5C rise in 60 odd years
2. We actually could do with more warmth and CO2, for a greener, thriving world.
I actually believe CO2 causes warming but in miniscule amounts, and see no dangers adding more, the only bad thing (proven) that it has caused so far, is some structural damage from melting permafrost.
Its the echo chamber effect, in part.
They mentally self-segregate themselves into essentially a vicious circlejerk. They don't have to hear opposing opinions or information, and if they do, they tune it out. BUT! they can chatter among themselves with outlandish conspiracies and ideas and they will trust those ideas. This in essence repeats itself -They tune out what doesn't support their opinion, and listen to each other internally, in the end further segregating mentally themselves.
This works particularly well with people that lack intelligence. Its not a rational thought process, but they are oblivious to it.
-This is why deniers call it something that "only deluded brainwashed snowflake idiots cannot see it is a scam", and why they cannot explain it in a rational and sensible manner to someone not in that echo chamber.
This concept can be applied across many different ideas. This is essentially how crackpot conspiracies operate. and how pseudosciences are. Hell, that is how you get extremists like ISIS or extremist social justice warriors.
because dealing with it as the reality it is means facing up to the necessity of making changes to the economy, specifically to reduce the use of fossil fuels, which is obviously a great technical challenge and will likely involve some kind of sacrifice to be made by everybody in the near term, for the sake of our descendants in the long term.
there are those directly involved with the fossil fuel industry who most vehemently and obtusely disregard the facts, their immediate livelihoods being threatened in their own minds of course, and then there are those who work for them, and those who just stooge for them because they like driving big, powerful cars and they think they won't be able to do that any more if they allow the reality to be acknowledged
I don't think it helps when those arguing for the acknowledgement of this reality jump so often and so quickly to propositions that are obviously intended to curb "high energy lifestyles," as if this was an unalloyed good in its own right in addition to being necessary for addressing the actual problem. I think it would be better to propose efforts to create more and better technology, that would allow people to live in as high a style as possible, under the circumstances. nobody participates in the modern world because they'd like to live poorer lives after all. which I might add is something that is often overlooked by all kinds of people, all the time, but that is another story.
anyway to make specific examples, I think there should be a lot more focus on supporting education, especially in fields like engineering and science in general. I think there should be a lot more attention and effort towards developing and deploying new generations of nuclear reactors far safer than the current water cooled varieties, and there are various potential designs for such things already in existence. electric cars lack only an improvement in their batteries to be realistic alternatives to the internal combustion engine. and so on.
I doubt there is going to be any getting out of some harsh consequences from global warming, 40 or 50 years down the line, but there is no time like the present, as they say, to start doing something about it
The brainwash, snowflake etc is the response to the lack of response from uninformed libs.
We're not gonna keep laying out data over n over and referring u to sources until we're blue ( from global frostbite).
After a while we have to give up and admit you people are just brain dead. The liberal virus only seems to re-activate enuff brain activity to get u up and walking. But it doesnt activate the thinking part of the brain. Maybe thats why u people cant seem to learn anything.
That may also be why only a shot to the head brings down a liberal.
Because after being a believer in it for so many years and seeing that none of the horrific predictions have come true I started to question things and became a denier.
Too much conflicting science, plus scandals on scientists and parties on both sides of the issue make it pointless to discuss.