How are there still people who believe global warming is a myth?

I would refer you to the thread on critical thinking. This is a case of a lot of people who don’t have the skill.

They are self absorbed people who only care about what is best for them and their own material wealth.
They follow the Republican Ideology even if the facts show it is flawed.
I have some in my family.
I am an Independent and I support the facts and neither party Ideology.

Is it that they don’t believe it exists? Or that they don’t believe that humans have as much impact on it as we’re being told and that it is the natural course of things?

Just looking for clarification. I thought it was the latter.

Where’s the proof that it is man made? Try to find it—I’ll wait for you. I’ll be waiting awhile.

@jlelandg, good point. You can’t prove that gnomes weren’t the ones emitting all those greenhouse gases since the industrial revolution.

@qingu and monkeys started flying out of peoples asses after you posted that bit of logical fallacy. There’s a little light reading for you, sport. Don’t argue post hoc with me. I know it’s bullshit.

So, you believe the massive increase in greenhouse gases was correlated, but not caused, by the massive increase in humans burning hydrocarbons since the 1800’s?

Or do you believe that the observed increase in Earth’s average temperature is correlated, but not caused by, the observed increase in greenhouse gases and the physical laws that dictate how they trap heat?

Not that I’m not impressed by your ability to link to Wikipedia articles about informal fallacies, but please be specific here.

@Qingu, I don’t believe “the massive increase in greenhouse gases was correlated, but not caused, by the massive increase in humans burning hydrocarbons since the 1800’s?”

I don’t believe the movie “An Inconvenient Truth”, because it was made by a married woman loving on another married man getting rich off Carbon Credits and spreading man made global warming hysteria.

And I’m not sure how to feel about your use of a double negative.

I don’t know you, so why don’t you go grab me some proof that it is man made other than your hasty correlation fallacy . I’ll wait for you-again it might take a while.

• “I don’t believe “the massive increase in greenhouse gases was correlated, but not caused, by the massive increase in humans burning hydrocarbons since the 1800’s?””
—Okay. So where did the extra greenhouse gases come from? Gnomes? Aliens? Jesus? Seriously, where do you think they came from?

• “I don’t believe the movie “An Inconvenient Truth”, because it was made by a married woman loving on another married man getting rich off Carbon Credits and spreading man made global warming hysteria.”
— Speaking of informal fallacies… that said, I did not even mention that movie so I’m not sure why you brought it up.

Maybe we should work out what you mean by “proof,” because a lot of people have misconceptions about the term in its scientific sense. Do you believe that it’s “proven” that the earth revolves around the sun? Why or why not?

Actually, scratch that. Here’s a more apt question: do you believe it’s “proven” that heavy smoking causes lung cancer?

The question is not one of whether or not there is global warming. Of course there is. Ever hear of the ice age?

The question is to what extent human activity influences global climate change and just how worked up should be get about it. The “global warming myth” is not about whether or not global warming occurs. Obviously it does as evidenced by geological record. Nor is it about whether or not human activity impacts our environment. Obviously it does since human activity leaves a footprint. The real disagreement is to what extent those with political motivations doctor and spin information to whip up hysteria for political gain.

There is a big difference between recognizing a need to be good stewards of the planet and screaming “The sky is falling, and if you don’t vote for me we are doomed!!!!!!”

@Qingu Why don’t you go google “List of scientists opposing global warming theory”. On this list you’ll find very qualified and learned men who don’t believe this either. This is not an evolution/creation argument, this is “Is the majority of global warming caused by man” and you cannot find a consensus on this issue. Cannot! We’re not talking evolutionary “theory” squabbles, we’re talking….(well just look at Yobob’s answer)

As far as Al…I personally dislike him and was just throwing him into the group of bullshit. That was a left field argument I threw in for fun-wasn’t trying to make it my argument.

I won’t waste much time on this as it will be lost in the rhetoric . I’ll let you figure out some numbers by yourself with a calculator.
1) Typical atmospheric CO2 is 0.038% It was 0.030% about 30 years ago.
2) A gallon of oil or gasoline burned makes 19 pounds of CO2. It takes almost an equivalent amount of CO2 to make and deliver a gallon to the pump. Call it 35 pounds per gallon consumed.
3) The world uses 31 billion barrels of oil per year. A barrel contains 42gallons.
4) The transmissivity of CO2 is very low in IR region. It absorbs infra red. That’s how mosquitoes find you even if they are upstream. They see in the IR region and can see your black breath. (It is also how I do remote CO2 testing and quick Air/Fuel measurements.)
5) We are also adding more than an equivalent amount of CO2 from Coal and other chemicals which absorb even more than CO2.

Simply put. We are dumping a lot of black(in the IR) crap in the air that was trapped in the earth for millions of years We are making a measurable difference in the albedo of our atmosphere.
Until it gets expensive to do so, people will keep dumping. At the rate we are going it will very expensive indeed. Better start working on a solution now before you really need it.

There are people who still believe the Holocaust didn’t happen. My dad taught me “Only a fool argues with a fool.” He was a smart guy. I’m out.

@YoBob, I actually agree with you. I think there is a tendency among liberals to portray global warming as this extinction-level threat that could completely destroy the planet, or at least destroy human civilization.

Human civilization will be fine if the planet warms up.

Poor people who live near coastal areas and in central Africa? They’ll be fucked.

And while life on earth will certainly continue, tens of thousands of species will go extinct.

So it’s important to contextualize the actual threat level of global warming, but it’s also important to realize that the threat is there, even if it’s not altogether apocalyptic like in a Hollywood disaster movie.

@Qingu…logical fallacy or no, your argument isn’t going to sway my belief. What I’m looking for is you to show me a link where we’re making more than just a tiny difference. I’ve heard it described before as “throwing a thimble of water on a burning house”. We don’t know yet.

@jlelandg, Christ’s beard, weren’t you the one who opened this conversation throwing accusations of logical fallacies around?

It’s actually part of my job to read scientific journals every day. There is a consensus among the scientific community about this issue, particularly the scientific community with expertise in the area of climate research. You know, as opposed to the meteorologists and Brigham Young PhD’s that seem to be skeptics about this issue.

But… let’s not appeal to authority here. Let’s discuss facts and observations, and what we mean by “proof.” You didn’t answer my question. Do you think it’s “proven” that smoking cigarettes causes cancer? Why or why not?

Define “tiny,” preferably in terms of tonnage of greenhouse gases.

May I also say how impressed I am by your proud declaration of your unswayable “belief” on this subject. A more certain mark of intellectual maturity and honesty I have never seen.

@jlelandg , the proof is in basic physics, the fundamental properties of matter. It has to do with the absorption spectrum of CO2, which is in the infrared region, in the same wavelengths as the heat radiated by the Earth from absorbed sunlight. The physicist Svante Arrhenius measured this effect in a laboratory in the late 19th Century, although the mechanism of action was known as early as 1859. Any increase in the concentration of CO2 in a closed system will result in an increase in infrared absorption. Since we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, we are increasing its infrared absorption. The energy cannot escape into space as quickly as it is absorbed, so the temperature has to go up.

The trouble with topics like Global Warming is that there is not a consensus among those who write about it in terms of what the etiology is precisely and what the impact is now and will be in the future. Obviously there have been previous drastic climate changes in the history of the planet, and according to what science tells us many pre-date humans. This is now a supposition on my part, but when you stop and think about things such as this, it makes some indiviudals wonder about things like global warming and our ability totally understand it. Just an opinion no facts quoted here from scientific journals.

@sleepdoc, on a nitty-gritty level of detail there is no consensus among scientists about any issue. For example, there is scientific consensus in favor of the theory of evolution. There is little consensus about, for example, the nitty-gritty role of “junk dna” in determining phylogeny.

There is consensus about anthropocentric climate change. We know that people are burning shitloads of hydrocarbons and we know the emissions cause global warming. We just aren’t sure what the exact effects will be because climate is a chaotic system.

Also, I’m confused why you brought up climate change in the past? (1) You do realize that such events were pretty terrible for the majority of species on the planet, yes? (2) How does this preclude anthropocentric climate change?

@Qingu I don’t care what your job is. Just because you read this or that for your job doesn’t mean you’re any kind of expert on the subject-just that you read journals and recycle information (admittedly like I have done as well). However, standing by an idea that others all across the scientific community agree (not just Brigham Young-I can’t stand those assholes) isn’t intellectually immature. You’re the one that started the smartass talk. Go find a response in your Gnome science journals about Christ’s beard.

Are you going to answer any of my questions or am I to assume you’re not interested in discussing this matter in earnest?

I’m still waiting for you to satisfy my demand first…Still waiting.

@Qingu… you are now taking points made previously by others in the thread an applying them to what I said. I didn’t say that the climates changes didn’t impact the species on the planet did I? Did I say that previous changes meant that global warming CAN’T be occurring, no. What I said was, there isn’t a scientific explanation for why those changes happened in the past, and as of yet we don’t have a full understanding of what is currently happening. I am not saying that science might not provide it in the future, just that as of yet we don’t know it all.

I am not sure what your demand means because you don’t seem to have a coherent sense of what the word “proof” means.

Do you believe it’s proven that cigs cause cancer?

@sleepdoc, what past climate changes are you talking about, exactly?

@jlelandg ” don’t believe the movie “An Inconvenient Truth”, because it was made by a married woman loving on another married man getting rich off Carbon Credits and spreading man made global warming hysteria.” – that’s why you don’t believe it, because of his relationship issues? Do you see that’s completely irrational?

Simone…shouldn’t have made a joke.

@jlelandq – I’m glad it was a joke.

To the OP: it’s easier for them because they’re used to believing in myths.

@Qingu… see what you are doing now is called baiting. You are wanting to get an answer to find something to contradict. I have not said anything about this can’t be happening or I don’t see how humans could be any part of it. Since you are so instant that others hear you out and accept what you are offering as proof, accept that some times people look and what is out there and say to themselves, they are making progress in this area but don’t have everything explained yet. That is a completely acceptable position to take, it is in the middle yes, but weighing what we read and see should be part of what we do. Just because you see something for the first time doesn’t mean you have to decide on the sport if you think it is the end all be all.

I’m not baiting, I genuinely want to see what you think the gaps are in science’s understanding of climate. There are gaps (there will always be gaps, to some extent by definition because climate is chaotic), but I think you are overstating them.

@Qingu Cigarettes, Al Gore, and Cancer are irrelevant on this question. Find me something that dictates an urgency to act on this issue before the year 2050. Why don’t we get more information before we fall all over ourselves to change everything right now.

Truth be told: I like the idea of taking care of the Earth. I think some viable green marketing is okay if people buy it. But I think many of the global warming champions are exaggerating what they know. Climategate scientists seem to already have an agenda, I want guys without so much of an agenda agreeing fully.

I’m out. You take the last word.

@Qingu… then that is fine, say I think you may be overstating the gaps in understanding (which by the way is also acceptable, because very few of us really take the time to fully investigate both sides most of the time). If what you want to do is offer up something you think would be helpful to show your point then post a link and let others read it. Sometimes if things are evident then let the evidence do the talking.

Eh, I prefer not to outsource my arguments on Fluther to websites.

@jlelandg, it’s downright bizarre that you seem so concerned with the “agenda” of the scientific community advocating action on global warming, but you don’t seem concerned at all with the “agenda” of multibilliondollar oil companies advocating for the “myth” position.

I’ll leave it at that, since you don’t seem interested in discussing the science or facts of this issue.

@Qingu ... Well thanks for admitting that you are voicing an argument. That is what proponents do. Politicians do it, lawyers do it, businesspeople do it. There is nothing wrong with it, but largely it presents the side (facts, truths, expert opinion) on which you stand and very little on the side opposite you.

Personally, unless this is your “thing” I don’t see why you need to the instrument to sound the notes for the world to hear. I guess if you are so passionate about this one thing, then more power to you.

@sleepdoc, I guess I don’t share your apparent need to be “above the fray.”

If something is true, I will argue that it is true. If someone came on Fluther claiming that he didn’t believe the earth revolved around the sun, I would make an argument that it did, because I think truth is important.

@Qingu That is fine. For what it is worth, I think that people who accept anything based off what one person says or tells them about a subject is making a mistake. This is nothing against you personally so please don’t take it that way. But we all filter the information we take in. When we tell others about what we have “learned” we present the things that were most salient to us as individuals. Sometimes that may not be the real point of what we had been reading or learning. The strength of any argument is related to the original source of the information and the person delivering the message. Individuals who expect others to accept their explanations or arguments without allowing the person to think about it and investigate on their own are simply asking for someone to accept their personal judgement on the topic as being correct.

I was in the lab and realized I forgot to give you one more piece of the puzzle – the size/mass of our atmosphere.

You can find it online but it is almost as quick to calulate it yourself.
Nominal atmospheric pressure is 14.7 psi, 101 kPa at sea level. That is the weightof a column of air on top of you. Multiply that by the surface of the earth and you have the total mass of the atmosphere.
Now divide in the tons of CO2 we make every year (that you calculated above) and see how the CO2 concentration should move every year. You will be very close to the experimental data that doubters distrust. It’s Physics. And the laws of Physics are hard to beat.
From the concentration and albedo difference you can get the expected heat gain. Assume 1 kw /m2 for the sun output .
You’re a smart guy. You can do the math yourself.

OK! Now I’m out of here – gotta’ accomplish something today.

@worriedguy , I haven’t seen much evidence that climate change deniers are any good at math, either. Just look at their ideas on economics.

There’s still people who believe the Holocaust is a myth as well. It’s just plain ignorance.

Ignorance is bliss to those uneducated.

I didn’t read all of the other posts, so please excuse me if this is a repeat, but exactly what is wrong, people who do not believe in global warming, in behaving if it is true? Those of us who know that it is true often do not or can not follow the more outrageous examples of behavior. Exactly what is wrong with recycling or choosing to drive a more fuel efficient car? Even if you don’t adopt the more outrageous examples of behavior, just doing a little could mean a lot, with very little effort on your part.

@worriedguy
My well educated brother in law buys into the bull that it is a natural cycle.
It maybe partly natural but the increase is too great to be all natural.
No matter the cause we need to stop global warming because it threatens the Earth. It threatens human life, plant life and animal life.
We do not have the Technology to reach another Earth like planet even if Astronomers can locate one.

@philosopher… this ties into what @YoBob brought up earlier. I think you are exaggerating the dangers of global warming.

Global warming is not going to destroy the Earth. Global warming is not going to come close to destroying the biosphere, or human civilization. There are obviously many real dangers from global warming, and perhaps many unknown dangers from it. But when you put it in apocalyptic terms like we’d need to find another planet to live on, I think it has the effect of potentially turning off skeptics who could be won over.

@Qingu
I hope your right but some people refuse to acknowledge any problem.
I have family that refuses to accept that humans have contributed.
Unfortunately global warming could accelerate to a point were Earth is uninhabitable.

@philosopher I don’t think any serious worst case scenario in the scientific community is predicting that the Earth will become uninhabitable. I don’t think the physical properties of the amount of greenhouse gases available to humans for emission could have that sort of impact.

Bear in mind we are talking about a biosphere that survived one, possibly two, massive asteroid impacts…

Is the Globe Warming? Probably.

Is there anything we can do about it? Probably not.

I appreciate in this discussion the articulation of a position that the consequences of global warming tend to be overstated. It is useful to distinguish between the math equation that shows an increase and how much or whether this increase will affect or “end” ecology, human or otherwise. It’s just as easy to become a Chicken Little as it is an ant’s grasshopper. Taking in the above has tempered my usual response to this question.

@jenandcolin, to answer your question directly, I disbelieve the “mainstream” or “liberal” global warming narrative because I cannot reconcile it with the following points, which I believe hold merit:

1. That weather and tectonic weaponization and modification technologies are more advanced than is commonly believed. See here , here , here , and here. Admittedly, the secrecy aspect of this point is now a little dated since geoengineering was reported as being discussed in earnest at the recent Cancun summit.

2. Purveyors of the global warming aka climate change aka anthropocentric climate change aka climate disruption narrative basically promise not a hotter planet but weirder and more extreme weather. I see weather modification and weaponization technology as similarly capable and a more likely explanation, and I think the two conventional sides of the debate go a long way to obscure this notion from the public’s imagination.

3. How similar is this fervor to religion and how coincidental in an age when religion is losing its control of the thoughts and behaviors of populations? Have you suddenly realized you are a carbon sinner? Do you believe in the Original Sin of your base and vile consumption? That your very exhalation of breath dumps carbon into the atmosphere? Mustn’t you pay for absolution to keep your carbon soul neutral?

4. The same interests that plundered and continue to plunder the planet (and who further down the chain incessantly market shit to us that we don’t need or want) are propagandizing our collective (as in “not their”) responsibility. This is akin to odious debt.

5. In reports of climate negotiations among nations, a regular theme is that the U.S. and first world nations press third world nations to accept inequitable restrictions on carbon emissions. So why not see this simply as another tale and tool of hegemony and imperialism to tamp a third world now catalyzed by industrialization and technology?

6. Sometime prior to 1990, NOAA shuttered 4,500 of 6,000 weather stations around the globe. NOAA provides what many would describe as reasonable explanations for this change—modernization, better records, more data, etc. but the fact is that data collection changed significantly from the century (give or take) prior to 1990 and the two decades following. Further, it is alleged that the 1,500 remaining stations skew warmer due to being positioned in warmer regions or microclimates. Is that alone not enough to cause reasonable doubt?

7. Damn near every day I see commercial and what I assume are military jets criss crossing the sky emitting what I believe are chemtrails that disperse into clouds over a couple of hours. This phenomenon occurs worldwide and has, apparently, for a number of years with no official acknowledgement or explanation from militaries or governments. (Note that they are specifically mentioned in the defunct Space Preservation Act of 2001 that I’ve linked to in #1 above). Why would I buy the climate change story if there’s secret and intentional spraying of particulates happening every day across the planet (in a way that is completely unrelated to the conventional problems of industrial pollution)? Perhaps the global warming problem is so urgent that a global governance body decided some time ago to sidestep public debate and proceed with geoengineering. I don’t see anything to indicate that is true, but if it were, the secrecy doesn’t do anything to engender my allegiance to or belief in the cause.

So that’s how.

For the same reason there is a Flat Earth Society and a Creationism Museum in Kentucky.

@mattbrowne
I get the point but I see people unwilling to make changes to help the environment as selfish and ignorant.
I have family who’s life is too easy for them to accept anything which would alter it. They are greedy and materialistic. They have always bought their way out of everything. They buy their way in too.
They have no empathy for those of us who can not.
They deny anything which does not help them. They call us to complain because we are family. They pretend to care. They go on to make more money. It must be nice to live in a reality that Deny’s anything you dislike.
I can not deny reality.

@philosopher – Some people will change their mind at some point. Making money and investing it must not be a bad thing. Solar and wind parks will need a lot of investors. Once the price of oil rises past $150 or $200 alternatives become more and more attractive. Oil is still too cheap. At a gas station a gallon should cost $5 and more. Copper and other metals will need to get more expensive. And they will. This will speed up change.

@mattbrowne
I hope your right.
I here unbelievable statements from people who say global warming does not exist. It is as if they live on another Planet. Maybe in their own delusional world.
They only believe what is best for them.
They are short sighted and self absorbed.
I have given up on convincing them. If Scientist can not why waste my time.

2 types: the ones who make money off activities that dystroy the planet, and they type those people are able to pay off or fast talk into supporting their actions…

@philosopher

And that is what separates the dreamers from the dream. ;-)

It is much easier to remain asleep than it is to wake up.

Most people will choose the dream state to preserve the status quo.

It has every attribute of a religion.

@Coloma
Your correct and I think this is what scares me most.
I have educated family members that give me illogical reasons for believing global warming is a myth. They are so against anything that the R wing does not see as putting money in their pockets.
The Environment should not be a Political issue.
I am an Independent and I decide by the facts not rhetoric.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”
—Upton Sinclair, I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked

But it doesn’t matter, as explained here.