From what I've read, the scientific consensus is that it is happening and is being dramatically increased by human activity. Yet a lot of people choose to believe the small minority that dissent, why?
Some say it's a huge conspiracy by scientists who are in for money, but as far as I can tell it's those who dissent that make headlines and sell books. So wouldn't corruption actually encourage the opposite?
I have a theory that's it a case of people thinking "I don't want to give up my lifestyle" and then working backwards from there to justify that viewpoint. So they'll see one dissenting opinion and seize it, because that's more comfortable to believe.
I'm genuinely looking for compelling evidence for doubting it as so many seem to, because I don't understand why you would pick the side with less evidence. Thoughts?
From what I've read, the scientific consensus is that it is happening and is being dramatically increased by human activity. Yet a lot of people choose to believe the small minority that dissent, why?
Some say it's a huge conspiracy by scientists who are in for money, but as far as I can tell it's those who dissent that make headlines and sell books. So wouldn't corruption actually encourage the opposite?
I have a theory that's it a case of people thinking "I don't want to give up my lifestyle" and then working backwards from there to justify that viewpoint. So they'll see one dissenting opinion and seize it, because that's more comfortable to believe.
I'm genuinely looking for compelling evidence for doubting it as so many seem to, because I don't understand why you would pick the side with less evidence. Thoughts?
Because it's difficult to prove. And there is more dissenting support than you make out.
With both the above, and with temperatures set to fall over the next ten years i can see why people question the theory.
Because it's difficult to prove. And there is more dissenting support than you make out.
With both the above, and with temperatures set to fall over the next ten years i can see why people question the theory.
As I said, please point me to it. I'm open minded to good sources of dissenting evidence.
I see that falling temperatures thing a lot, but people seem to have forgotten it wasn't an argument against global warming. It was actually said by someone who believes in global warming and then went on to state it would then resume afterwards. They've simply seized the first part and forgotten the rest because it's convenient to the argument.
Last edited by touchofclass : 2 Weeks Ago at 17:21.
As I said, please point me to it. I'm open minded to good sources of dissenting evidence.
I see that falling temperatures thing a lot, but people seem to have forgotten it wasn't an argument against global warming. It was actually said by someone believes in global warming and then went on to state it would then resume afterwards. They've simply seized the first part and forgotten the rest because it's convenient to the argument.
I am not claiming it as scientifically correct or accurate, nor am i in a position to do so, i'm simply saying why some people dispute global warming..
Location: home Posts: more than you can shake a stick at
Re: Why do so many people dispute Global Warming?
i dont care because so many nobs like you are running around like headless chickens panicing and buying "green" things.
most peoples scientific evidence for global warming is the day after tomorow
GLOBAL WARMING DOESN'T EXIST!
For the last decade or so, the world has been getting colder!
That's what people dispute it.
People dispute anthropogenic global warming not normal global warming.
Yes but scientists say the trend will be upwards. Trends aren't perfect. Why do you vaguely state a blip like that and think you know better than the scientific consensus of those who have been studying it for years?
If it was that obvious, the scientists wouldn't believe in man made global warming.
I am not claiming it as scientifically correct or accurate, nor am i in a position to do so, i'm simply saying why some people dispute global warming..
I think it's significant that in your first post you said "there is more dissenting support than you make out", but then admitted you didn't really know much about it apart something vague about the planet probably getting cooler, which as I said has been misrepresented.
I respect that you don't make any bold judgements on hear say evidence, but the problem is others do.
i dont care because so many nobs like you are running around like headless chickens panicing and buying "green" things.
most peoples scientific evidence for global warming is the day after tomorow
Is that directed at me?
I'm not sure if that post was in any way serious, but if it was it's narrow minded in the extreme
science has proven to be wrong in the past, apparently the world would freeze in the 70s, so people dont always trust it. then theres the issue of conspiracies, wanting to slow growth of india etc. or even because people dont want to believe it because it means their lives would have to change.
I think it's significant that in your first post you said "there is more dissenting support than you make out", but then admitted you didn't really know much about it apart something vague about the planet probably getting cooler, which as I said has been misrepresented.
I respect that you don't make any bold judgements on hear say evidence, but the problem is others do.
I don't know about the scientific basis, there is plenty of dissenting support, i see it represented in political literature (my knowledge of the sciences does not comprehend my ability to read of others opinions).. i am not a scientist and therefore lack basis to make a personal judgment is all i meant.
Why is it something vague, i stated there is a consensual estimate of contemporary and near future temperatures - i didn't state the manner it was originally represented in, which is irrelevant to the point anyway - global warming skeptics persist to use it as an argument, its original presentation has nothing to do with its meaning? It's not as if you, the one asserting the validity of a positive theory, presented a source or clear argument how this incorporates into global warming anyway..
Is there a scientific consensus? I've always assumed that there is, and never really questioned it, but has there been a poll of experts in there area, and results showing how many of them believe its down to humans? I assume there must be somewhere, or it wouldnt be such a wide spread belief.
science has proven to be wrong in the past, apparently the world would freeze in the 70s, so people dont always trust it. then theres the issue of conspiracies, wanting to slow growth of india etc. or even because people dont want to believe it because it means their lives would have to change.
I don't know if you personally believe in these points, but I'll dispute them anyway with my current opinion
1. Science has been wrong in the past
You can use that as a reason to doubt any science, but it seemingly only gets used when there's a science we're uncomfortable with. From what I've read the consensus is strong, strong enough indeed for developed countries considering giving 50 billion dollars to developing nations to combat climate change.
2. It's a conspiracy
It's easy to just claim something is a conspiracy until you actually look at the practicalities of it. They'd have to corrupt most of the scientific community, hundreds of thousands of respected people, to lie and fake evidence, and what's in it for the scientists anyway? As I said in the original post, you make a lot more money taking the opposing view. I think it's a case of people not liking what they hear, and searching vainly for a conspiracy so they don't have to accept it. If you look closely enough into anything you can concoct a conspiracy theory about something, that's why pretty much every big event of the last hundred years has conspiracy theorists (9/11, Diana, Titanic etc. etc.)
So we're left with people don't want to change their lives. Which I think is the real reason why the opposition is so fervent.
Is there a scientific consensus? I've always assumed that there is, and never really questioned it, but has there been a poll of experts in there area, and results showing how many of them believe its down to humans? I assume there must be somewhere, or it wouldnt be such a wide spread belief.
This is not actually using wikipedia as the source, it's just wikipedia summarising all the studies that have been done. If you wish you can look up all the studies it mentions individually.
But basically, "Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions."
Apparently the last major organisation to dispute it were the "American Association of Petroleum Geologists", who work for the oil companies. Funny that...
Even they, in the face of the evidence, now have to have a 'non-committal' position on it
I find it bizarre that people think Global warming is a creation of the elite, considering you don't get much more elite than oil companies, and they look for every opportunity to oppose it.
People dispute global warming because they are, by and large, ignorant.
As are most people who agree with the theory of global warming. I doubt many people on either side have really studied the issue, and nothing is reported without some kind of angle. I will quite happily admit I haven't read enough that supports or discredits the theory to really have an opinion on it, and I suspect that nor have a lot of people who attack those who question global warming. Groups like Greenpeace are just as likely to cherry pick the facts that suit them as those that deny global warming (they certainly do when it comes to 'green' energy and technologies).
Informal discussion on any topic (within reason). Use the 'Chat' forum for informal talking.
Why do so many people dispute Global Warming?
