why are so many people ignorant about global warming?

Question

i've heard lots of people say that global warming is a scam and has been proven to be a scam, when? i sure missed that one guys, i was 100% sure it had been proven to exist, if it has been "proven to be a scam, show me evidence, and telling me its so and not showing objective material with credibility does not count as evidence, also, if you have no evidence, where did you get the idea that it doesn't exist?

Answer 1

And in the 1970's it was "proven" that we were facing global cooling and were facing an ice age.



Both sides of the argument have yet to prove it 100% either way.



Everyone admits that climate change happens. There is evidence that the Earth warms and cools. What has not been 100% proven is that man is the cause.



Also, what is the normal temperature of the Earth supposed to be? Through much of the Earth's history, it was a lot warmer then it is now. So is our current idea of what the world's temperature is supposed to be the correct one?



Also, why are Venus and Mars warming up also?

Answer 2

There is a lot of conflicting information out there...you have chosen which information to believe, others have chosen other information.



Also, consider that the term "global warming" may be extremely misleading, especially with regard to the way the average person views the world. An uncommonly cold winter, for example, doesn't look very warm...and if that uncommonly cold winter extends all over the northern hemisphere as it did last winter, you just can't tell people who are freezing that the planet it warming up!



Public figures that disagree with the idea of "global warming" go public with their opinions and people who don't know any better take those opinions as gospel. If George W Bush says it's hogwash then, to his followers, it is hogwash.



Finally, the average IQ is between 85 and 115 and the average attention span gets shorter every year. Can you explain global warming in terms understandable by these people in 30 seconds or less? Didn't think so.



And that is your answer.

Answer 3

Not enough research on the subject could be a reason.

There is an agency called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

Like a patient in a hospital, earth’s vital signs are being closely monitored by climate scientists. Satellites track the shrinking of glaciers, weather stations maintain rainfall readings, buoys measure deep ocean temperatures, aircraft monitor levels of atmospheric gases. This vast array of climate data is fed into supercomputers. Simulations of the climate system are run so as to predict what will happen decades, even centuries, from now.

The diagnosis? Some believe that the atmosphere is overloaded with greenhouse gases. In 2006 alone, the world’s carbon dioxide output “approached a staggering 32 billion tons,” says Time magazine. Like the glass panels of a greenhouse, such gases trap earth’s heat, preventing it from escaping into space, thus contributing to global warming. The future? According to the IPCC, continued gas emissions at present levels will result in “many changes in the global climate system,” which will very likely be worse than what has already been experienced. Many now agree that the solution lies in curbing carbon dioxide emissions. However, even if the emissions of these gases were somehow stabilized, computer models suggest that likely the “warming and [resulting] sea level rise would continue for centuries.”

On the IPCC website there are graphs that help explain what is happening to this Earth.

It is quite informative.

Answer 4

Many people cite the recent cold weather/snow as proof that there is no global warming. However, they fail to look toward science for the reason why this occurs. Oscillation (North American, Artic, Antartica, and Pacific) is the cause. The ice caps are melting, this can be proven by measuring the (shrinking) ice caps as well as air temperature, As the caps melt, it adds moisture to the air; this moisture is then moved by the oscillation current over land (such as the U.S.) and of course what goes up must come down.

In addition, many non-believers think that we will feel the effects of Global warming (as in warm weather) instantly. Scientifically, we measure the progress through the average annual temperature, not just a day or two (or even a season) during the year. This temperature has been increasing over the last fifty years and in about another 25-30 years, we will be at a temperature where the non-believers think we should be now (a point of no return).

Answer 5

Well that's what global warming makes worst because of people are different on this world, some come and go, some have different perceptions and points with different opinions.

Answer 6

People talk in absurd generalities. I ahve heard that the seas are going to rise and AGW will destroy civilization as well. These generalities are almost always wrong.



As for if AGW exists, I think it is clear that it does. What we are uncertain about is the amount. There have been many that have questioned the crediblity of the scientists do the the leaked emails. Clearly the scientists are biased as any would be, whose pay is derived from obtaining a certain result.



If you are looking for proof that AGW is overestimated, then this is quite easy to show.



We know that temps rise with CO2 in a logarithmic manner. Further, the amount of warming that is possibly attributable to man is 0.3-0.6 degrees. Lets take the high end. We also know that CO2 has risen by 40%, for arguement's sake I will say that we have experienced 80% of this warming (note some warmers say much lower, but their rationale runs into circular logic). So with a 32% rise in CO2 we see a 0.6 degree rise in temps. Meaning with a 100% rise (or a doubling) we would see a <2 degree rise. The models have much more. Further, Temp follow CO2 in a logarithmic manner, and the warmers say that CO2 will increase in an exponential manner (I doubt this is true given that we have already hit peak oil consumption and 1st world countries have already leveled off in CO2 production). SO if you take the logarithm of an exponential, you will always gets a line. The warmer "modelers" are the only "scientists" I know, who take the logarithm of an exponential and get an exponential. They must be working with that new math. You know 1+1=11.



So runaway global warming and the end of the world scenarios are likely bunk, but we should still work to lessen our CO2 output.

Answer 7

Adults in general are uninformed about the environment, they basically learn from their kids who

are learning about it in school.

Kids love learning about the Environment, 6- 11 yr olds are a prime market!

Checkout a favorite site for Environmental Education for kids at : http://www.earthdog.org

Answer 8

Ignorance is common among us all. Self induced ignorance is less tolerable.



I believe that there are "deniers" and skeptics that know enough to be convinced but, they do not want it to be true for various reasons. Fear, personal greed and political beliefs all seem to come into play.



Not all Republicans or conservatives think climate change is not real or, if it is, that man has contributed to it. Not all Democrats or liberals think that AGW is a fact. Split along political ideologies that are vast more Republicans and conservatives that believe AGW is a farce. I believe that the ones that are deeply convince of a political ideology will not deter from the messages given by their ideological leadership no matter what the evidence shows. Yes, this is true of both sides of the political spectrum and this is one reason why I abhor party loyalty. I study the evidence and I follow where the evidence takes me. Should new evidence show a different result, then I am not afraid to follow where the new evidence takes me. Politically speaking, this would be called flip-flopping. Logically speaking, this is the ability to absorb new evidence and adjust accordingly.

Answer 9

Okay, I'll take a new tack on this issue.



There is one side (pro-AGW) of the issue, which is highlighted right here in the answers to your very question, who call the other side (Skeptical) things like this:



-"average IQ is between 85 and 115" This means that those who think AGW is a scam are on the left hand side of the IQ bell curve

-"Fear, personal greed and political beliefs all seem to come into play"

-"A major segment of the American public worships rejects from the education system like Limbaugh and Hannity" Translation, the anti-AGW crowd are basically education system rejects.

-"they are too stupid to understand" Self explanatory.

-"mental feebleness and laziness"



If I was a person who had never heard of AGW and I came here and read all that crap, I have to ask why would people be that vile if they are intelligent, moral and generally correct about all things regarding nature?



That sure looks like a moral superiority complex to me and that's my evidence, not that global warming doesn't exist, but rather there is something else going on. The problem has been overstated so as to convince me I need to do something. I feel like I'm being sold a Ford Pinto by a very persistent and rude used car salesman and if I don't buy it I'm just plain stupid. I see some people around here already own a fleet of Pintos and few Gremlins and Pacers for the weekends.

Answer 10

You'll see that from both camps. The alarmist propensity to promote discord and mayhem neglects intelligence. You can't find anyone or anybody that states energy doesn't provide prosperity. Currently that philosophy is restricted mainly to fossil fuels...so what would you have the world do?



Its no longer a question of evidence but rationalizing with resolve. Unfortunately it isn't happening, and I have no use for those that malignity point fingers.

Answer 11

All the projections for the future calamity that climate change is supposed to bring is based on computer models. The information that comes out of those models is only as accurate as the parameters used to construct the model to begin with. Common sense and experience tells me that when a cloud comes overhead that the temperature seems cooler. Water in a swimming pool does not warm up as fast on a cloudy day as it does in direct sunlight. Show me a climate change computer model that incorporates cloud cover in it's calculations. The models I have seen ignore the shading effect of cloud cover and proceed as though the side of the earth facing the sun is constantly in direct full sunlight. When the computer models are constructed in a way to ignore certain conditions and mainly consider only those conditions that push the findings in the desired direction then I believe the label of "scam" is well deserved.

Answer 12

too bad about this , :(( people are different in this world , and this is the problem of the global warming

Answer 13

I blame the liberal education system, as Gary points out basic science isn't being taught anymore, instead our children are indoctrinated into believing bad things happen because humans are on the planet and if your parents really cared the world would be a better place.

Answer 14

As soon as someone can tell me how warm the planet should be, today. They may gain some credibility. As soon as someone tells me how fast the planet should be exiting the Little Ice Age, they may gain some credibility. And I do not believe it is too much to expect the mythical consensus to agree on these numbers within several 0.000's.



But instead we have models, within the same scenario, with a seven degree variance. Over the past 130 years, the Earth has warmed 0.74 ± 0.18 °C. Seven degrees is worthless when we are not even talking about an entire one degree Celsius. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Warming_Predictions.png



What else do we have for evidence? Melting glaciers? Emotional pleas to save the polar bears? Delusional twits who blame the earthquake in Japan on global warming (and everything else for that matter)? Physics that proves it on paper?



http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/05/how_not_to_measure_temperature.html I see stuff like this, and I tend to question the validity of the "unprecedented" temperature rise...



http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=14&filename=845217169.txt

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=687&filename=.txt

From their own mouths...



And then there's all this nonsense with the missing heat.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon-14_with_activity_labels.png And what of the Carbon 14 figures that show today's measurements to be at least as high as the MWP?



You never learned to question authority? You never learned to think for yourself?

Answer 15

Ha ha you certainly will get every one fired up with a question like that!!



People don'y want to belive in global warming as it makes them feel like they should do somthing about it, just as we might look at the trash / rubbish bin piling up and not empty it becuase we have . . . . . other things to do.



Most poeple rely on the media for there education, and as such attention grabbing headlines of animals dying of the cold, anmd snow in mexico are very attention grabbing and reasuring for the man who prides the fact he drives around in the 15 mpg pick up truck.



http://the-environment.org.uk/further_info/which_car_best_for_environment.html

Answer 16

For one the graph that Al Gore shows about co2 levels in correlation with rising temps. Is backwards... Rising temp. Are shown to start earlier than the rise of co2... 800 years earlier in the example shown by him where he zooms in. Now I do believe in global climate change... But I dont think we are cooking ourselves alive. Nature is very resilient and will find a way to fix itself... Human co2 output or not. Not to say we should burn burn burn... But it's not the end of the world.

(reply)

People like me eh? Does no one remember the global cooling scare of the 70s and 80s? I was born in 1988 and I've researched... Same exact premise as global wArming... Just a different tune... Please look it up. As for this mumbo jumbo about co2 levels...I never said humans weren't increasing levels of co2... And yes co2 is a green house gas... BUT...what I was saying was nature will cope...look at how any form of nature bounces back after a volcano destroys every form of life... Research the lake near Mt. Saint helens... That was depleted of all life and oxygen bounced back and is now thriving...not the best example of curing global warming but what I am saying is nature will fix the situation...and as I said before humans will need to do there part... But were nit going to burn ourselves dead in this planet... Sorry nature is just to damn smart to let us do that.

Answer 17

I am guessing you aren't even sure what it is you believe in. You just know that you are supposed to believe in global warming. Like many churches, many people just go to belong. They don't go because they really understand anything about what the congregation believes and why. Similarly with AGW, people with a like mind gather to show that they are superior and moral and they want to save the world. The problem is the world doesn't need saving. The world has been warming for about 300 years. Before that it was cooling. Before that it was warming.... Perhaps humans have added a bit to that latest bit of warming but only an imbecile or an alarmist would think that is necessarily bad IMO.

Answer 18

why am i ignorant about global warming. did you know that this is the first winter that all the 48 states had snow!!! i don't call the global warming i call it GLOBAL COOLING. this is april 6th i am looking out the window now and i see snow, snow, and more snow. I hate snow and i don't live in alaska i live in pennsylvania.

Answer 19

1) Only 53% of American adults know how long it takes for the Earth to revolve around the Sun.



2) Only 59% of American adults know that the earliest humans and dinosaurs did not live at the same time.



3) Only 47% of American adults can roughly approximate the percent of the Earth's surface that is covered with water.



And only 21% of American adults know all three.



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090312115133.htm



In addition to thinking AGW is a hoax, millions of Americans think vaccines cause autism, that the creation myth of Bronze and Iron Age sheep herders is science, and that space aliens travel millions of light years just so they can have sex with our planet’s white-trash demographic and do donuts in our agricultural fields.



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090312115133.htm



http://www.alternet.org/environment/141679/unscientific_america:_how_scientific_illiteracy_threatens_our_future/



A major segment of the American public worships rejects from the education system like Limbaugh and Hannity, and the most dynamic Republican is a nitwit that has to write “Energy, Tax, and Lift American Spirits” on her hand because she is too stupid to remember the three major points of her own core political message.



And according to a 2006 survey results from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), the US ranked 29th in scientific literacy, behind countries like Croatia, the Czech Republic, and Liechtenstein, and ahead of just nine other OECD countries.



http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1205/p02s01-usgn.html



=======



nighthawk --



"Water-vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003–2008"



http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL035333.shtml



"Clouds Appear to Be Big, Bad Player in Global Warming"



http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5939/376.summary



Journal of Climate: "New cloud feedback results “provide support for the high end of current estimates of global climate sensitivity”



http://climateprogress.org/2010/11/23/journal-of-climate-cloud-feedback-study/



"Cloud feedback could accelerate global warming"



http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/39908



"Climate Models:Uncertainties due to Clouds"



http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/presentations/climate_model_clouds.pdf



"The Net Effect of Cloudiness on Surface Temperatures"



http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/cloudiness.htm

Answer 20

Because there is well-funded, ideologically fanatical and profoundly amoral organized campaign of incessant lies about climate science being a "hoax" or "scam" or otherwise unreliable. (Yahoo Answers heavily features some of the most pitiful silly fourth rate copy cats thereof).



Because it suits the interest of some politicians to cater to these fanatical liars.

Because many people are lazy and it suits their laziness to simply agree with the organized deceptions, or because they are just too lazy to bother to figure things out for themselves and just regurgitate the latest garbage of the liar-deniers, or because even without being lazy they are too stupid to understand whatever is after all a counterintuitive thought that slightly increasing a few trace gases in the atmosphere over a couple of centuries can profound change the world's climate for millenia.



Or because being a liar-denier is a convenient if amoral way for some people to hide their mental feebleness and laziness.



And because too few scientists and political leaders are willing to be as direct as the top scientists in the U.S. National Academy of Sciences were last year



http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782&page=1

“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”

http://nationalacademies.org/morenews/20100716.html

“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”

http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ABOUT_main_page

“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”



Edit: While I do hope you look at my links here, I'd have to say, I'd probably pick Gary F's answer as best if I were you. In any case, do be sure to read it even if it gets buried by illegal thumbs downs (you can still "unhide" it to read it).

Answer 21

Tell you what.



The global warming believers are trying to convince everyone it's a problem.



When you can show me any predictions made by those people that have come true, I'll start to entertain your position.



I'm still waiting for the extreme and destructive 2006 hurricane season, and I would really like to see some above average temperatures anywhwere.



Did they predict crops freezing in Mexico?

http://www.seriouseats.com/2011/02/crop-freezes-in-mexico-affect-grocery-prices.html



Did they predict Florida's Wildlife dying from cold?

http://news.discovery.com/animals/florida-wildlife-cold-weather.html



Perhaps it's not so 100% sure?

Answer 22

Well, in the U.S. at present, our opinions are in too many cases ideologically driven; therefore, if someone or some organization we align with politically tells us something, many of us adopt that belief regardless of whether it is factually true or not. This is in part driven by the media, which tells us the things that attract our attention, and thereby sell more advertising. Both sides of the political spectrum in this country accuse the other of the same tactics, and both sides tend to ignore the transgressions in their own party-or pundit, blog or media outlet-while condemning the selfsame transgressions when employed by the opposition.



Part of it is information overload, which leads us to rely more and more on sound bytes rather than investigation of the underlying facts and principles. Part of it is the arrogance of entitlement, which seems to embolden some people to claim abilities-such as logic-driven common sense promoted in our own national mythologies that are not necessarily in their skill sets. The U.S. is not alone in this regard, it can be seen in other countries and cultures as well, but I cannot comment as specifically about foreign attitudes and knowledge as I can about the U.S. because that is where I live and have become painfully aware of the realities.



And part of it-perhaps the most significant aspect-is our abysmal standings in terms of education, decried by many but recognized on a personal level by far too few. If the U.S. ranks around 25th in the world in Math, 20th in the Sciences and 12th in Reading (by one approximate measure) why is it that many of the same people who bemoan the state of education in the United States cannot grasp that they themselves may be victims of an inadequate system; that they themselves have somehow learned enough in that failed system to be qualified to make absolute judgments about the validity of scientific evidence contrary to what the vast majority of qualified scientists tell us?



The question comes back full circle to political ideology; too many things are too complex for the vast majority of the population to grasp. We do not have the science education to understand climate change; we do not have the math background to analyze economics, and we do not have the reading skills to absorb the vast amount of material that is produced. So we specialize-we develop skills that enable us to function day to day and, in most cases, with some success. And then we listen to sound bytes; those which resonate with us lead us to attach our loyalties-and our beliefs-to the people and organizations that we feel benefit us the most, regardless of how factual those sound bytes are.



Furthermore, we misconstrue success in one arena as validating our logic and ability to analyze facts and other data in others where we have no experience or particular knowledge. This can be seen repeatedly and is parodied and satirized throughout entertainment...but continues day in and day out.



When it comes to global warming, there is a whole subset of this belief structure that has come to be known as denial, a term largely condemned by those who practice it the most adamantly. There are lots of reasons to be skeptical of science's findings to date, but your example of global warming having been 'proven' to be a 'scam' is not one of the best of them. Should we be questioning the methods of temperature gathering, and analyzing and reanalyzing the data to see if we can improve the accuracy while gathering more as we refine our abilities to do so? Absolutely. Yet rather than focus on concrete and tangible actions to determine the facts-either way-there is a contingent of people and groups who focus on what they consider irrefutable 'proofs' based on a sound byte or two that is no more than the opinion of their favorite political celebrity of the moment.



Where, exactly, is the logic in that? There is none other than ideology designed to blunt the progress of science rather than advance it to protect interests that some feel are at risk and can only be sustained by keeping those whose voices resonate with them in power. And those underlying emotions-driven in turn by fear that is largely masked by misplaced aggression-are based on sound bytes and buzzwords rather than the actions of those to whom they throw the weight of their support.

Answer 23

It's because of people like Brendan, sorry to put you on the spot, but they believe what they hear from the people of choice. Attributing the burning of fossil fuels and the release of those to 'natural variation' isn't being truthful at all. and our burning of fossil fuels is not the natural progression of CO2 as it increases with a warmer atmosphere. CO2 increases in a warming atmosphere due to outgassing from the oceans. However the oceans are currently decreasing in pH signifying an increasing uptake of CO2. The increased atmospheric CO2 is not due to a warming atmosphere as, another point, is that human emissions are greater than what the atmosphere is currently increasing by. Some of the increase is being absorbed and putting an increased stress in carbon sinks. It is the types of people that are not aware of the actual science but merely parrot what they hear from anti-science blogs and such.

Answer 24

stupid people are ignorant about it,'Intelligent people know it is a hoax