Question:
How many of you think that people are in denial of global warming?
Life goes on...
2007-07-31 23:35:05 UTC
They get so defensive!Instead of o.k.,we should take better care of the planet now!We have devastated it enough already!We will take this as a lesson to make changes!We will think of the poor people,creatures,and nature that have already been affected by it,and not be so arrogant about wether its really man-made or not!Its a good thing we found out now,before its too late!The guilt and the shame!
32 answers:
Rickolish
2007-08-01 02:19:54 UTC
I think a lot of people choose to ignore the reality and I would ask them to please consider these points:



If the earth was a (circular) football the atmosphere would be a layer 1mm thick on top.



Asshat Mcpoops suggested volcanoes contribute more CO2 than humans. Well, to supply some form real data to this, Gerlach 1991 estimated 130-230 million tonnes CO2 per year - sound a lot? Humans produce an estimated 27 billion tonnes of CO2 per year (marland et al 2006). 150 times that from volcanoes



Scientists are not part of a conspiracy, they simply present the facts as they are best understood. The ozone hole was pointed out and a solution agreed upon, thanks to alternatives to CFCs. The lack of a single, easy, oil alternative (and the strength of the oil lobby) has resulted in this vicious backlash against scientists which will get us nowhere.
Marc G
2007-08-01 09:39:49 UTC
Emotional Gobbledygook is used by those that think we should "do something" or "act now" or "save the planet" and other such bumber-sticker platitudes.



That very same emotional gobbledygook leads people into action based on the Precautionary Principle.



The precautionay principle has a tendency to run into the law of unintended consequences. This is especially when we have the worst of humans making decisions (politicians with zero science or risk management skills).



One only needs to look at the ban of DDT to see that the precautionary principle should be invoked only rarely. Malaria had been nearly wiped out on the African continent using, now there are millions of dead every year. But, since the environmental movement was acting on the PP and not even doing a cost/benefit analysis of use vs no use of DDT, they didn't foresee the millions of deaths that would occur. All they could see was that they were potentially saving birds.



What will happen when governments really start ratcheting down CO2 emissions? What will actions to control CO2 emissions cost in terms of dollars AND human lives?



The poor people, creatures, and nature you seem to care about so much deserve better than whiny, mealy mouthed, emotional appeals to "do something" without any thought of the consequences of those actions.
pete m
2007-08-01 00:03:15 UTC
This is not a question it is a Rant. It is time you actually looked at the facts instead of looking at media hype. Is global warming happening undoubtedly, is man wiping out species and wrecking the environment, certainly, Is man causing global warming, no I don’t think so, he is not helping that for sure so there is still a reason to take better care of the environment but variations in global mean temperatures are part of the normal process of the earth, from the moderated intergalcials, to ice ages and tropical jungles we are not causing the problem we are exacerbating it. The other thing you need to consider is that nature not only looks after its own but also destroys them, what of the dinosaurs for example....Whether it were a meteor strike or global cooling it was still nature that killed them off.



We did not find out now we new about the potential for Global warming of the order of 25 to 30 years ago and we could have done a lot more by now but its only ever easy to be moral when you have a full belly and a roof over your head, don not be so quick to judge this situation exists in China and India now , who are you to tell someone they cant feed their children?



A lesson to make changes, well yes there have been some and perhaps there should be more but it is easy to say and less easy to do, Go to you school college or work place and ask everybody there to commit to paying say 10% of there income or time to an environmental charity, not just for a day but for a lifetime, and see what happens. my guess is that there will be lots of fervent activity to start with everyone wanting to be a part, but when that 10% starts to be the difference between spending time with your kids, or being able to pay your rent I'm guessing that there will be a decline in activity.



I understand your sentiment, but if you wish people to pay attention, do not rant use resoned arguments. It does work in the long run.
soñador
2007-08-01 01:21:47 UTC
I live in southern Spain. The temperature in July was about 32c - 34c but a few years ago it was a great deal hotter. Last year it only got above 38c (100f) once. Now I believe in general terms the climate is changing but the weather predictions (forecasts) for this part of the world are invariably wrong. Forecasting weather is by scientific data just the same as forecasting the cause of Global warming.

All I'm getting at is, if you can get it wrong one way can someone prove different that they can get it wrong another way.

I'm not just going to believe what an eminent scientist has said. Much of what I've heard and read is second or third hand. It could be like playing a game of Chinese whispers.



Edit; Okay Rickolish, I'm prepared to listen to any argument because I'm adult to admit I may be wrong in my thinking, however, I made a point on here and as you are a scientist can you please reply to my reasons about scientific forecasting.



Edit; IngelaD, your facts are a little way out if you think the world is about 10,000 years old. So many people telling so much science and getting it wrong......Chinese whispers syndrome perhaps!
Tsh
2007-08-01 00:36:41 UTC
By the look of the answers so far I'd say not many, and I can't say I'm disappointed.



If by global warming you mean that the climate is changing, then this is undoubtedly true. If however you think that this is solely through the actions of the human race then you couldn't be farther from the truth.



Do people actually believe that if not for the actions of man the world would remain the same forever?



As has been pointed out in some of the answers above, the effects humans have had to date on our climate alone is nothing compared to what nature is capable of inflicting upon itself.



What bugs me more is that most people seem to think humans are so much more superior than anything else and stand apart from the rest as if we really are in control of everything.



They seem to forget that we ourselves are a product of nature which could wipe us from the face face of this planet in the blink of an eye and there's nothing we could do to prevent this should it happen.



I'm amazed sometimes by the sheer arrogance of the human race.
ShuggieMac
2007-07-31 23:55:32 UTC
It is fairly obvious which side you come down on and whilst I am not denying that things are changing and it it is not for the good, I am not at all convinced that is not also in part (emphasise in part) the natural cycle. We know that the earth has gone through significant temperature changes before - the ice ages came to an end for a fairly obvious reason i.e. it got warmer, for example.



You take a stand point that people get defensive, which of course is not true of everyone BUT people on the other side of the debate can also get just as blinkered and defensive of their stand point.



In my opinion I feel a better way would be for people to be reasoned with rather than preached at. By encouraging people to think about things rather than beat them about the head with a big emotional stick. People should also not be demonised if they still have a car or take a holiday flight - which are just easy targets for politicians' and tree huggers to get brownie points and in the former case raise more revenue.
anonymous
2007-08-03 04:28:46 UTC
First of All--Global Warming is a chain reaction and the government ad-visor and consultant are the last idiot you can find from here to the Sahara including the European too.

The people react the way they do because the people in general are accuse on a daily basis of been the one guilty of this entire catastrophe, how ever the majority of the people if allowed, they will find the answer to the cause and apply correction to the mistake. But a special group of murder in control of North America and Europe just don't allow the people to provide the answer as required.. To better understand this answer please visit: www.santanaeffect.com and you'll be a total new person once you get to know the truth.
ashlock
2016-12-11 11:49:47 UTC
confident, this is a thoroughly political flow. you will discover those on the left and staggering accepting AGW as a in all risk possibility. people who say this is all scam basically come from the staggering. Edit: additionally I do have a tendency to be a skeptic while it incorporates new clinical theories. i think of darkish count number is genuinely bogus. in case you discover you observations do no longer adventure your calculations, you do no longer invoke a clean style of count number. You examine your observations and/or calculations returned. i do no longer care plenty for string thought the two, in view that it rather isn't any experimental data to back it up. Edit: 2 of Jimmmbo's links are actual peer reviewed and neither solid doubt on MGW, they only improve subject concerns with countless the parameters positioned into the climate fashions. those subject concerns are properly familiar and not skipped over.
the boss
2007-08-01 01:55:08 UTC
You are so wrong. I don't believe anybody disagrees that global temperatures are rising, its all the bu!!sh!t being pumped out about the causes of it. The planet has been here for so long and varied in temperature from day 1. All this nonsense will get forgotten about once the suitable taxes are in place.





PS If scientists all of a sudden changed their mind on climate change, do you think they will still keep their budgets and their jobs ??????



PPS Science is only 'mans best GUESS'
anonymous
2007-08-01 04:45:03 UTC
Global warming is not man-made! True we do not care for our planet as good as we should, but man is not to blame for the natural cycle of our planet!



Instead of getting at people who believe / don't beleive in GW, we should be getting at the governments, media agencies and big frims that are using scare monger tactics to con us into giving them more money.



Forget about global warming - we should be stopping the global con! Just don't forget to recycle and be a nice person as well!
anonymous
2007-08-01 00:11:04 UTC
I don't think people are in denial its just that there are so many conflicting reports, many scientists don't necessarily agree with each other on the causes and effects of global warming and i think many people are confused as to what to believe. For example recycling, we should all be doing as much as we can in recycling our materials, but find one agency that says, what exactly can be recycled. I do my bit but i can only go on with the information i am given.

You also have a major problem wth emerging nations like China, how much notice are they taking, its down to the governments of all countries to educate us and keep on pushing home the message.
mick t
2007-07-31 23:48:51 UTC
I have worked in nature conservation for 30+ years and strongly believe that we should care for our environment by using our resources carefully and minimising our effect on the planet, however I do not believe that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is correct. This demonisation of C02, which is not a pollutant, but a natural and essential component of our atmosphere, is focusing our attention on the wrong thing. The history of our planet is that environments change, species adapt or die out. A futile attempt to stop climate change is a waste of time, energy and money
anonymous
2007-08-02 10:45:43 UTC
I think most of us are too selfish to give up on our wayward lifestyle which contributes to global warming.But just maybe looking at all the freak weather that has been happening around the world and has devastated so many lives will make us look at things differently ....hopefully.
myassisdragon
2007-08-01 08:03:44 UTC
I think people don't want to have to change their lifestyle. They can't see anything happening so they don't believe it. Just like all the paranormal stuff. If it's not in their face, it doesn't exist. It might mess up their belief system, whatever it may be.



It's more important to find out who the father of Paris Britney Richie's baby is.
anonymous
2007-07-31 23:55:02 UTC
Mick T you stated that wonderfully.



I think the global warming scare is doing more harm than good for the cause of environmentalism. There is so much misinformation and alarmism from the pro-side and so much hate mongering from the con-side that nothing gets done but a lot of whining.
anonymous
2007-07-31 23:45:48 UTC
Here's why.



Because every post by an environmental, regardless of actual facts being presented is done with such arrogance and aggresiveness.



Your post for instance:



"We have devastated it enough already". I disagree. Volcanos release more CO2 in an hour than most dirty factories in the 70's did in a year. So no, WE haven't devastated it.



You stated that we will not be so arrogant about whether it is man made or not. Well, if you're asking me, a regular guy with a job and a crapload of responsibilities and problems of my own to adjust my own life based on YOUR OPINION, then you better damn well be sure that what you're asking me to do is worthwhile.



Us "non enviros" haven't been presented with a convincing argument of scientific fact. Al Gore repeatedly refuses to meet with scientific experts who disagree with Al's "Facts" to open discussion.



Seems that Enviros are following Preacher Gore in the Religion of Environmentalism, and have enough guilt and shame heaped upon them from the Nature Church.



No thanks.



It's not denial. It's rejection.
DikkiJones
2007-08-01 11:59:10 UTC
I think some people are in denial about it and others just don't care. Many people I know have the "Well, I'm gonna be dead by then, so what does it matter" attitude. What a lousy attitude to have. What about our children, and our children's children? We have to take of our planet now so future generations won't be left to clean up our mess.
Ingela
2007-08-01 04:36:34 UTC
Most of the answers above just wants me to scream in frustration! You're absolutely right about them being defensive and I agree with you 100%.



Then we have all these silly arguments about "vulcanoes emitting more than humans" e t c. It just shows how uneducated they are on the subject and they probably choose to keep it that way. http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/223957/72



This subject is not about "belief" but actually listening and be prepared to take all the scientific facts into consideration. Hence it's NOT a religion. You can "believe" in God and man made global warming at the same time! Just as you can believe in God and accept the scientific fact that the earth is more than 10 000 years old. (Even though I've recently learned that many Americans don't believe in that either. That's a different subject though but it's telling me some things about how difficult it can be to convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced.)



Edit: Karol, please read my post again. I did not say the world is about 10 000 years old. I said that I've recently heard many americans believs it's younger than that despite the overwelming scientific evidence saying otherwise.
anonymous
2007-07-31 23:45:59 UTC
I don't think that people are really denying it, but rather they're not really caring about it and doesn't recognize the devastation of it. I mean, no one I know has denied global warming, but they just merely shrug off the topic and carry on with whatever they were talking about. Kind of a "well, what can I do about it?" attitude. What needs to be done is to educate the public about the fully potential of global warming, and the simple morality that we shouldn't be destroying our own world.
Sparky
2007-08-01 00:40:51 UTC
We're not in denial, because there is no such thing. Its getting to be as big a debate as "is there a God?" You either believe or you don't. And if you don't agree with the tree huggers, you get the same response as if you deny God.
55Spud
2007-08-01 05:46:17 UTC
Okay, let's say you're right. What are you doing? Recycling and fluorescent bulbs don't count because the benefit is relatively nil. Are you combining your trips when you drive your car? Are you driving the most fuel efficient car you can? How about the real benefit...solar. Have you, or are you working toward, installing solar electric and hot water systems? If not, you've no business being on here blowing your horn about something you're not doing yourself.
Dr Jello
2007-08-01 12:31:05 UTC
Isn't that like saying how many people are in denial about Santa Clause?



What are you trying to prove? That many people believe in things that aren't real?
anonymous
2007-08-01 04:09:04 UTC
you "will think of the poor people"...awwww...you care SO much..look at you!!! can i pat you on the back? someone needs to nominate you for the nobel peace prize, you and algore, you know what's best for everyone else...(insert extreme sarcasm here..)btw, there is a huge ball of fire in the sky that might be the culprit according to scientists...just thought you might want a little shame and guilt of your own.
?
2007-08-01 00:03:31 UTC
It is not so much denial of the problem,but denial of who to believe, there is a problem, but it is NOT just us that are causing it, and we can never get a strait and honest answer from our governments , so I think most of us would and try to help but we are not really sure how.
Bill S
2007-08-01 05:57:42 UTC
I deny that people are denying it. The argument is over the cause., e.g. Big Oil or Mother Nature.
anonymous
2007-08-01 03:14:36 UTC
With all the so - called Global Warming what is a shame is all you Tree Huggers still using your computers writing on YA. Practice what you preach !
anonymous
2007-07-31 23:45:19 UTC
If you are a liberal by the time you're 18, you're normal. If you're not a Republican by the time you're 35, you've never been mugged. (not necessarily literally, just figuratively)



You didn't really ask a question, but I don't pitch my bottled water bottles.. usually refill them two or three times at least.
203
2007-07-31 23:46:56 UTC
There are a heck of a lot in denial.



You can also look at it like this:



What are the consequences of the global warming believers and the action they want taken being wrong? Slightly increased cost of living, cleaner, less polluted planet.



What are the consequences of the deniers and their inaction being wrong? Sea level rise, flood, drought, climate change, crop failures, non native insect infestations, more pollution and on and on and on



I know which I'd choose!
Hawk
2007-07-31 23:43:35 UTC
I don't get defensive about it, but i am not totally convinced either!
misskitti7®
2007-07-31 23:51:17 UTC
just Americans
areyurflowersinbloom
2007-08-02 05:37:04 UTC
join many who do



http://groups.yahoo.com/group/realcyclelondon/
Mike G
2007-08-01 10:00:12 UTC
I've been reading and researching this issue for years and have come down on the side that disputes man-made global warming. Climate changes have occured for billions of years and will continue to do so for billions more . . . with or without us.



So, I've decided to take sides with these folks, scientists who dispute man-made global warming:



August H. Auer Jr., AMS Certified Meteorologist, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science, University of Wyoming, USA

Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Chemistry, University of California, San Diego, USA

Arthur Rorsch, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands

Benny Peiser, Ph.D. Professor of Social Anthropology, Liverpool John Moores University, UK

Chris de Freitas, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Geography and Environmental Science, University of Auckland, Australia

Claude Allegre, Ph.D. Physics, University of Paris, France

Christopher Essex, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics Professor, University of Western Ontario, Canada

David Deming, Ph.D. Geophysics, University of Utah, USA

David Evans, B.Sc. Applied Mathematics and Physics, M.S. Statistics, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, Stanford, USA

David J. Bellamy, B.Sc. Botany, Ph.D. Ecology, Durham University, UK

David R. Legates, Ph.D. Climatology, University of Delaware, USA

Dennis Avery, M.S. Agricultural Economics, The University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA

Dennis P. Lettenmaier, Ph.D. Professor of Hydrology, University of Washington, USA

Douglas Leahey, Meteorologist, Calgary, Canada

Douglas V. Hoyt, Solar Physicist and Climatologist, Retired, Raytheon, USA

Frederick Seitz, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University, USA

Fred Singer, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University, USA

Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus, Physics, Princeton, USA

Gary D. Sharp, Ph.D. Marine Biology, University of California, USA

Gary Novak, M.S. Microbiology, USA

George H. Taylor, M.S. Meteorology, University of Utah, USA

George V. Chilingarian, Ph.D. Geology, University of Southern California, USA

Habibullo Abdussamatov, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, The University of Leningrad, Russia

Henrik Svensmark, Solar System Physics, Danish National Space Center, Denmark

Howard Hayden, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut, USA

Hugh W. Ellsaesser, Ph.D. Meteorology, Formerly with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, USA

Ian D. Clark, Professor Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada

Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, University of Adelaide, Australia

Jack Barrett, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Manchester, UK

James Spann, AMS Certified Meteorologist, USA

Ján Veizer, Professor Emeritus Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada

John J. Ray, Ph.D. Psychology, Macquarie University, Mensa, Sydney, Australia

John R. Christy, Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois, USA

Joseph Conklin, M.S. Meteorology, Rutgers University, USA

Keith D. Hage, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, University of Alberta, Canada

Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physicist, Harvard, USA

Madhav Khandekar, Ph.D. Meteorology, Florida State University, USA

Marcel Leroux, Professor Emeritus, Climatology, University of Lyon, France

Michael Crichton, M.D. Harvard, USA

Michael Savage, B.S. Biology, M.S. Anthropology, M.S. Ethnobotany, Ph.D. Nutritional Ethnomedicine, USA

Nir J. Shaviv, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, Israel Institute of Technology, Israel

Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA

Petr Chylek, Ph.D. Physics, University of California, USA

Philip Stott, Professor Emeritus, Department of Biogeography, University of London, UK

Reid A. Bryson, Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Chicago, USA

Richard S. Courtney, PhD. Geography, The Ohio State University, USA

Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT, USA

Roger A. Pielke, Ph.D. Meteorology, Penn State, USA

Robert C. Balling, Ph.D. Geography, University of Oklahoma, USA

Robert H. Essenhigh, M.S. Natural Sciences, Ph.D. Chemical Engineering, University of Sheffield, UK

Robert Johnston, M.S. Physics, B.A. Astronomy, USA

Robert M. Carter, Geologist, James Cook University, Australia

Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Economics, University of British Columbia, Canada

Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin, USA

Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D. Astrophysics, Harvard, USA

Sami Solanki, Ph.D Astronomy, EHT Zurich, Switzerland

Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D. Soil Science, University of Minnesota, USA

Simon C. Brassell, B.Sc. Chemistry & Geology, Ph.D. Organic Geochemistry, University of Bristol, UK

Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Ph.D. Department of Geography, University of Hull, UK

Steve Milloy, B.A. Natural Sciences, M.S. Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, USA

Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, University of Toronto, Canada

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Ph.D. Founding Director International Arctic Research Center, USA

Tad S. Murty, Ph.D. Oceanography and Meteorology, University of Chicago, USA

Tim Patterson, Ph.D. Professor of Geology, Carleton University, Canada

Timothy F. Ball, Ph.D. Geography, Historical Climatology, University of London, UK

Vaclav Klaus, app. Ph.D. Economics, University of Economics, Prague, Czechoslovakia

Vincent Gray, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Cambridge University, UK

Wibjorn Karlen, Ph.D, Emeritus Professor of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

William J.R. Alexander, Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa

William M. Gray, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, USA

Willie Soon, Ph.D. Astrophysics, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, USA

Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D. Ph.D., Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Poland



And NOT these folks:



Al Gore, B.A. Government

Robert F. Kennedy Jr, B.A. Government, J.D. Law

Alanis Morissette, High School Diploma

Alicia Keys, College Dropout

Alicia Silverstone, High School Dropout

Art Bell, College Dropout

Ben Stiller, College Dropout

Bill Maher, B.A. English

Bono (Paul Hewson), High School Diploma

Brad Pitt, College Dropout

Cameron Diaz, High School Dropout

Daryl Hanna, B.F.A. Theater

Diane Keaton, College Dropout

Drew Barrymore, High School Dropout

Ed Begley Jr., High School Diploma

George Clooney, College Dropout

Gwyneth Paltrow, College Dropout

John Travolta, High School Dropout

Jon Bon Jovi (John Bongiovi), High School Diploma

Joshua Jackson, High School Dropout

Julia Louis-Dreyfus, College Dropout

Julia Roberts, College Dropout

Keanu Reeves, High School Dropout

Kevin Bacon, High School Dropout

Kiefer Sutherland, High School Dropout

Leonardo DiCaprio, High School Dropout

Madonna (Madonna Ciccone), College Dropout

Matt Damon, College Dropout

Michael Moore, College Dropout

Nicole Richie, College Dropout

Olivia Newton-John, High School Dropout

Oprah Winfrey, B.A. Speech and Drama

Orlando Bloom, High School Dropout, B.A. Drama

Pierce Brosnan. High School Dropout

Richard Branson, High School Dropout

Robert Redford, College Dropout

Sheryl Crow, B.A. Music Education

Sienna Miller, High School Diploma

Willie Nelson, High School Dropout

Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics (RealClimate.org)

James Hansen, Ph.D. Physics (NASA)

Michael Mann, Ph.D. Geology & Geophysics (RealClimate.org)

Richard C. J. Somerville, Ph.D. Meterology

Bill Nye, B.S. Mechanical Engineering (Bill Nye the Science Guy)



Now if you excuse me, I need to keep using all the wonders that petroleum, chemistry and industry have provided me . . . i.e. my computer, car, house, coffee maker, iPod, clothes, shaving cream, shampoo, shoes, refrigerator, microwave, wifi, medicines, etc., etc., etc.



:-D


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...