Why do people believe in global warming?

Question

I think its the dumbest rumour ever started.
it's so bigged up now, if it were to exist, the government would have passed numerous laws by now to prevent this one extra degree that the worlds temp will go up by killing us all. LOL

so people, explain to me why if you believe or DO NOT believe in global warming. again, in my opinion, the biggest lie ever created within this alienated world. people believe ANYTHING and yet we are supposed to be the intelligent century HA!

Answer 1

If you don't believe in global warming, don't complain when part of the west coast, mainly California, are below sea. Recent reports predict that parts of the west coast will experience a lot of damage from melting ice and the effects in the coming years. Some of the effects will be the sea level rising over beaches, covering the sand.

Answer 2

>>Why do people believe in global warming?<<

While I'm sure that some people 'believe in' global warming because they are told what to believe in by their teachers and other authorities, you will find that many accept global warming because they looked objectively at the scientific evidence on the subject and constructed an informed opinion on the matter.



>>I think its the dumbest rumour ever started.<<

Um... Right...



>>it's so bigged up now,<<

I'm sorry, is that supposed to positively influence my opinion of your opinion on anything?



>>if it were to exist, the government would have passed numerous laws by now<<

bahahaha

You'd think that...but giant corporations more or less own the government, so it's not exactly easy to enact laws that would hurt the corporations' bottom line.



>>to prevent this one extra degree that the worlds temp will go up by killing us all. LOL<<

I'm not sure how, but I figured out what you mean here. We aren't all going to be killed by global warming, especially not one degree of global warming.



>>so people, explain to me why if you believe or DO NOT believe in global warming.<<

Because I've looked objectively at the scientific evidence on the subject and constructed an informed opinion on the matter.



>>again, in my opinion, the biggest lie ever created within this alienated world.<<

I guess you haven't discovered the joys of trying to follow the convoluted backtrails of the 'evidence' that AGW deniers try to get away with...



>>people believe ANYTHING<<

And you are...immune? lol



>>and yet we are supposed to be the intelligent century HA!<<

Since when? I live in the US where not only are most people stupid, but they are far to stupid to know how incompetent they are at evaluating their own decision making skills.



Edit: [re: Sagebrush's answer]

""Even though your use of the English language is somewhat less than eloquent you observation is correct."

That. Is. Priceless.



_

Answer 3

Interesting. You condemn other people for believing what they read on the internet and what they’re told and yet, aren’t those exactly the same sources that you’ve used and based your opinion on. Does that not strike you as being somewhat hypocritical.



Out of interest – what have you based your opinions on? It’s clear to me that it’s not based on evidence, fact or reality. How much do you actually know about climate change?



Also, which sources said that temps will increase by one extra degree or that global warming will kill everyone? I’ve never come across such claims before, wherever you got that from is clearly lying.



To answer your specific question, I accept that global warming is happening because I know the science of global warming, I know the laws of physics that dictate how it must happen, I’ve seen first hand evidence right around the world. I’ve spent 29 years studying and researching the climates, have three degrees, two masters and one doctorate in climatology and directly related subjects.



Some governments have passed laws to reduce the impact of climate change but even if we reduced our emissions to zero with immediate effect it’s already too late to stop further warming. Greenhouse gases remain in the atmosphere for an average of 84 years, what we released yesterday will still be warming the planet at the end of the century.



It would help if you researched the sources of greenhouse gas emissions, then you’d know why passing laws can only go so far. Practices such as farming and agriculture are two of the largest sources of greenhouse gases, I’m assuming you wouldn’t want to ban these.



I’m assuming you’re aware that natural global warming is essential to life on this planet, without it Earth would have no heat retentive properties and would be so cold that it would be frozen solid and completely devoid of life. So tell me, if natural greenhouse gas emissions warm the planet, why don’t human emissions also contribute?

Answer 4

They believe what their "supposed" believe because they've been taught since early childhood that they will be rewarded & respected for so called "correct" thinking.

For example a child in kindergarten quickly learns he or she will be rewarded with a smile or pat on the head for saying what the teacher wants to hear.

This "conditioned behavior" naturally carries over to seeking approval from any authority figure such as elected officials or other popular public figures as the person matures.



The unconscious urge to be a part of the majority group has also been innate in humans since the beginning of our species in remote prehistory.



These are only 2 of the many reasons that some people will express belief that a fraction of 1 degree change in average temperature will be catastrophic for the world while ignoring the fact that they personally may experience a temperature change of as much as 130f from hottest summer day to coldest winter day every year of their lives with no ill effects to them at all.

Answer 5

i'm nevertheless a splash sceptical, besides the reality that i actually care approximately our wild places. I do in spite of the incontrovertible fact that think of that we could desire to continually take the possibility heavily. The evidence proves that organic cycles of climate take place on a grand scale. there have been as quickly as lions, hippos and elephants wandering the united kingdom geographical area, approximately one hundred twenty,000 years in the past. That replaced into an interglacial heat spell. the ingredient that isn't disputed, is that those issues take place of course, regardless of each little thing the Scottish geographical area is stuffed with glacial effective components. in spite of the incontrovertible fact that, the evidence capacity that our extra contribution to international warming is making it take place at a swifter fee than existence can handle. we are speaking approximately climate replace taking place in many years, fairly than spanning centuries or hundreds of years. vegetation and fauna has coped with climate replace rather nicely interior the previous. woodlands and grasslands can flow at their snails p.c.., to maintain song of the circumstances that greater healthful them. those days there are extra subject concerns. we've our vegetation and fauna trapped in wallet that are surrounded via farmland. The organic "corridors" are long gone. vegetation and fauna charities are doing their terrific to make our wild places greater joined up. If climate replace maintains because it incredibly is and there is not any area for issues to go, then we can lose lots. besides, i think of my significant difficulty is that i don't love it to be real.

Answer 6

Evidence



Global warming is happening

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/images/warmingindicators.jpg

And we are causing it

http://planetsave.com/2010/08/18/humans-cause-global-warming-10-indicators/



The ten warmest years in the instrumental record are 2010, 2005, 2009, 2007, 2002, 1998, 2006, 2003, 2004 and 2011.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

Answer 7

Evidence. Lots and lots of evidence. Evidence online, evidence in classes I have taken (college-level biology classes), scientific papers...



I'd suggest you check out a few new sources.

A few things to look for, when evaluating the reliability of a source:

1. Does it reference peer-reviewed scientific research?

2. Does it explain why or how something works, or just make assertions and expect you to accept them?

3. Is it internally consistent, or does it make multiple essentially contradictory claims?

4. Does it agree with other sources that reference peer-reviewed research, explain rather than just making assertions, and are internally consistent?



A few sources you might find helpful:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

http://aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html

http://www.realclimate.org/

Answer 8

Because it's common sense. How about you do us all one big favor and look up "global warming" online. See what people with PhDs and actual degrees say about it, and why it DOES exist. Then go learn more and UNDERSTAND before laughing at others.



Why hasn't the government done anything about it, you say?

Because of politics. Do you have ANY idea how much votes influence the government? The president and anyone with power are more concerned about keeping votes and their funds intact than about some dilemma that's inevitably going to drop in their backyards several years from now. They're thinking short-term, not long-term. It's not like they're going to ban the use of cars the very next day and force everyone to walk to their destinations just because cars emit gas fumes that heat up the atmosphere. Honestly, you have no idea what real life is.



Any "scientist" that claims that it doesn't exist are obviously being paid by the organizations that have the most to lose if laws restricting environment-damaging stuffs were established. You clearly fell for their propaganda. If you were older, you would've also probably been a sucker for the doctors who claimed that cigarettes were good for your health a few decades back.



THINK. LEARN. UNDERSTAND.



edit: Just because I really don't have the time to go about making lame insults at other people's usernames (and I'm not immature enough for that, besides), I'm going to ignore your statement. Delusion is the belief of something that is untrue based on irrational logic. You've done nothing to reinforce the idea that my claim is illogical, and stooping down to name-calling is SO mature, right? I suggest you look up the words you try to use to insult others before you use them.

Answer 9

Well firstly there is no "belief" needed. We are talking about science. You either agree or disagree with the scientific evidence ... no belief neeed.



The scientific evidence supports the conclusion that humans are highly likely having a net effect on global warming ... you could perhaps be skeptical of the extent and effect humans are having on global warming,



Also for your information global warming is an observable trend (that is it is FACT). If humans are having a net effect is a scientific theory.

Answer 10

The above comments said it all. Global warming is a real thing, and Elementum said it quite nicely too. You should totally learn what you're talking about before you go denouncing others. It's pathetic.

Answer 11

Wow, you're a very immature person. I agree with Elementum - you need to learn common sense. Global warming is a real problem, and only the "deluded" would claim otherwise. I pity you.

Answer 12

(1) Your difficulties in learning how to read and write in English

and

(2) Scientific reality

are actually two separate things.

Answer 13

Because it's a fact supported by evidence.Unlike your scientifically illiterate opinion

Answer 14

Most people believe it because they just believe whatever the liberal media is pushing. Others believe it because they have something to gain from it, many paychecks are dependent on the man-made Global Warming SCAM. And the movement still receives about 2 billion taxpayer dollars every year from the American government alone, so it is very well funded. When you control that kind of money you can buy a lot of propaganda.



But man-made Global Warming is NOT happening, we know this because it's advocates have no empirical science to back their claim. And their advocacy movement has been mired in scandal since its beginning. Here are some things you should know:



1) The Earth has been both much warmer and much colder in the distant past, long before the industrial age. Climate is indeed changing, but it has always changed and probably always will. These are obviously natural cycles that man does not and cannot control.



2) Global Warming alarmist have been caught in one lie after another. Huge scandals have been continuously revealed since the early 1980’s when the campaign began. Some of these are listed below:



3) Al Gore’s movie "An Inconvenient Truth" was full of bald faced lies. Like the Polar Bears were drowning, or the Ice Caps were melting, or the oceans were rising --- all lies. In fact a court of England ruled the movie was so flawed that it could not be shown to school children without a disclaimer.



4) The ClimateGate affair exposed the utter corruption of the Warmist community with their exposed emails speaking of how they intended to “hide the decline” and how to manipulate data and the peer-review process in their favor.



5) Then there is the fact that the globe isn’t even warming anymore and the small amount of warming experienced from the 1900’s to 2012 timeframe was negligible and well within the envelope of normal.



6) During this same period of marginal warming, scientists also noticed that other planets in our solar system were warming. What do these planets have in common ? --- the Sun.



7) Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit, the Guru and High Priest of Global Warming himself admitted there has been no statistically significant warming. If anyone on the planet would have been aware of statistically significant warming it would have been Phil Jones and he admitted there has been none. (Game Over)



8) Warmist like Al Gore refuse to engage in any formal debate on the issue. That’s because on the few occasions Warmist have debated openly, they lose, and they lose big. Lord Monckton utterly destroys them time and time again.



9) Al Gore and other Warmists have stated clearly that they want to make CO2 the object of a global tax. CO2 is the perfect object for their revenue purposes because you literally cannot live without making CO2, after all, we exhale it. And current science has shown clearly that there is no correlation between the planet’s mean temperature and the concentration of CO2 in the air. Demonizing CO2 is all about the tax dollars, and that’s all its about.



See the scam for what it is and don’t believe any of it.



Polar Bears are doing fine:

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/190805/20110802/polar-bear-global-warming-extinction-climate-change-research-world-wide-fund-wwf-geological-survey-s.htm



Perfect example of Warmist propaganda using polar bears to try and glean sympathy for their global scam.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLt0myO8XsA



Phil Jones admits NO statistically significant warming

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/15/global-warming-insignificant-years-admits-uks-climate-scientist/



35 major errors in Al Gore’s movie

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html



Court rules Al Gore’s movie unfit without disclaimer (11 major errors reviewed)

http://creation.com/al-gores-inconvenient-errors



Graphs showing that CO2 does NOT drive Temperature

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/correlation_last_decade_and_this_century_between_co2_and_global_temperature/



Warming on Mars -- and Jupiter, Pluto, Neptune

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=6544



Lord Monckton destroys Warmist in debate (Video)

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/no_wonder_the_warmists_hate_debate/





For the full story on the man-made Global Warming scam watch these:



The Great Global Warming Swindle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov0WwtPcALE



Global Warming Doomsday Called Off

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295#



-----------------------

Answer 15

Anthropogenic global warming deals with an energy imbalance of the Earth due to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. As you increase the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere more energy is retained by that atmosphere warming the planet. Different parts of that planet, however, can get colder while others get warmer due to resistribution of heat as the atmosphere reponds to the warming.



According to Planck's Radiation Law the emitted radiation from an object varies in frequency and wavelength dependent on the temperature of the object. The Sun emits most of it's energy below 4 microns, based upon it's temperature, and follows a black body emission curve of about 6000K. The Earth, being much cooler than the Sun, follows a black body emission curve of about 288K. Various gases in the atmosphere with an uneven distribution of electric charges are able to absorb and re-emit certain frequencies of energy based upon their resonant frequencies. Gases that can absorb energy at the longer wavelenghts emitted by Earth are known as greenhouse gases and make up between 2% and 3% of the entire atmosphere. These gases, however, keep the atmosphere about 33K warmer than it would be otherwise.



Certain gases that are emitted by man, such as those due to fossil fuel usage, are increasing in the atmosphere. CO2, for instance, has increased from 314ppm (parts per million) in 1958 to over 390ppm in 2011 and is increasing at a current rate of about 2ppm/year (1). This is roughly equal to 15.6 billion tonnes of CO2. Emissions by man have also been recorded and, as of 2009/2010, amount to over 33.5 billion tonnes/year (2). Oceans, which usually add CO2 to the atmosphere during a warming period via Le Chatelier's Principal, are currently absorbing more CO2 than they are emitting due to the increasing partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere (3) and the oceans are decreasing in pH as a result (4).



To see the effects the increasing amount of CO2 and other gases have on the energy balance of the planet we have to look at measurements of that energy. Looking at changes in outbound radiation over the course of a few decades, from 1970 to 2003 as measured by various instruments aboard satellites, we can see how much additional energy each gas can account for. CO2 absorbs at a small band centered at a frequency of about 15 microns or approximately 700 cycles/cm. Link 5 below lists the changing values associated with various wavelengths in the longwave spectrum.



Page 3987: Graphs depicting measurements of outbound radiation at specific wavelengths. The left side of the graph shows the measurements that are attributed to one half of the band associated with CO2 absorption.



Page 3990. Graphs depicting changes in outbound radiation between the three data sets and their statistical significance.



In link 6 below figure 7-8 shows an image of the black body emission curve of the Earth and where certain greenhouse gases absorb radiation at.



Remember: You can't just take one instance, look at it, and then say "Yeah that's why we are warming!" You have to look at all causes of temperature changes, such as variations in solar input, changing albedo and land use, greenhouse gas concentration, natural oscillatory cycles, Milankovitch cycles, and so on. Nor can you assume we are warming because we have warmed because of specific cause in the past or claim we are warming due to a cause without providing any data to back it up. You can disprove current scientific theories regarding anthropogenic global warming by showing with proof the amount of warming each individual forcing/feedback is causing.



1. http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/in_situ_co2/monthly_mlo.csv

2. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/perlim_2009_2010_estimates.html

3. http://eprints.ifm-geomar.de/2294/1/683_Takahashi_2009_ClimatologicalMeanAndDecadalChange_Artzeit_pubid12055.pdf

4. http://cmore.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanacidification/documents/doney_annrev_marsci_2009.pdf

5. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI4204.1



Further reading:



6. http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html

7. http://forecast.uchicago.edu/archer.ch4.greenhouse_gases.pdf

Answer 16

Even though your use of the English language is somewhat less than eloquent you observation is correct. Global warming as believed by the greenies is a hoax. Even the IPCC admits that AGW doesn't exist and now calls it Climate Change.

You are mistaken. Many governments do a lot to us in the name of global warming. They tax us. They make up insane laws. They pay a lot of money to the UN-IPCC. All in the name of global warming or climate change. The greenie's goal is to lead us all off to a one world government and to definitely destroy the US constitution.



Quote by Mikhail Gorbachev, communist and former leader of U.S.S.R.: "The emerging 'environmentalization' of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences. Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of a world government."



Quote by Gordon Brown, former British prime minister: "A New World Order is required to deal with the Climate Change crisis."



So You see the greenies openly admit it.



They know it is a lie but yet they go on deceiving the public to attain wealth and power.



Quote by Timoth Wirth, U.S./UN functionary, former elected Democrat Senator: “We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”



Does that sound like an honest man?



Then you see dupes like Elementum who says, "See what people with PhDs and actual degrees say about it, and why it DOES exist."



OK Let us see what some say.



Quote by Will Harper, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy: “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism....I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect....Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”



Quote by Nobel Prize Winner For Physics, Ivar Giaever: “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.”



Quote by Nobel Prize Winner For Chemistry, Kary Mullis: “Global warmers predict that global warming is coming, and our emissions are to blame. They do that to keep us worried about our role in the whole thing. If we aren't worried and guilty, we might not pay their salaries. It's that simple.



Quote by Martin Keeley, geology scientist: “Global warming is indeed a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested interests, but in need of crash courses in geology, logic and the philosophy of science.”



Then Elementum follows up with further stupidity by saying, "Any "scientist" that claims that it doesn't exist are obviously being paid by the organizations that have the most to lose if laws restricting environment-damaging stuffs were established." Obviously, Elementum is unaware of one 'scientist', James Hansen, who is being charged with legal action for taking money under the table in the amount of millions of dollars.



Also Elementum must be unaware that Al Gore got rich from his lies.



Quote by James Spann, American Meteorological Society-certified meteorologist: "Billions of dollars of grant money [over $50 billion] are flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story."



But you see Elementum is just a typical greenie who has a lot of bluster but cannot prove anything about AGW. All the PHDs in the world with all that billions of grant money haven't been able to prove AGW. When they loose that argument they resort to consensus. Consensus is not science. Ask Galileo about that. Then they say 'common sense' and it doesn't add up because .039% of the earth's atmosphere does not and cannot control the temperature. The greenie computer models haven't followed the temperatures of mother earth. Then they resort to name calling. And you can see they all follow a definite pattern. You are stupid. Your sources are stupid. Blah Blah Blah. If they are so smart then PROVE IT!



You are right they are deluded.