Verified answer

I think I am competent to evaluate the data. Since on YA I should only be evaluated by my performance on YA, I would refer anyone interested to my UK/Ireland rankings; I am on the top answerers list for chemistry (first), other science, science and mathematics, earth science, and biology.

(If anyone is really interested in such detail, go to Answers home,click on "United Kingdom", and select "UK/Ireland questions only". You can also review and evaluate my answers.)

In the early 1990s, I became convinced by the theoretical and experimental arguments that AGW is real and serious. Shortly after this, partly as a result of correspondence with individuals that I prefer not to name, I concluded that there was a concerted campaign to mislead the public on this matter, undertaken for reasons that had nothing to do with science. That remains my position. I continue to review the evidence on both these topics.

If I had not felt myself competent to evaluate the data, it would be a matter of who to believe. On the one hand, the National Academy of Sciences etc etc, on the other hand Glenn Beck and the Daily Mail.

As to why other people take the positions that they do, that is usually clear from close reading of their answers.

Global Warming is a symptom of a larger problem. That problem being that humanity takes resource and dumps waste faster than the Earth system can accommodate. Climate change and ocean acidification are nothing more than the result of carbon pollution.

Unfortunately, for policy makers, for the rest of us, and for the planet, fossil fuels are the very foundation of our economy, our modern way of life. In fact, the world as we know it today came into existence only *because* of fossil fuels. Without hydrocarbons for power and petrochemicals, or an alternative, we go back to a pre-industrial society.

"What is truly inconceivable is the idea that your very way of life is the source of the problem. The idea that everything you lived and believed has been a delusional folly; a wildly unsustainable flash in the pan. The sheer scale of our mass delusion is staggering. But we already know that. People only believe what they want to believe. When the energy and the water and the food run out we shall all be awakened from this pipe dream and our folly will come to an end very quickly."

**********************************

So, why people don't believe is obvious. It's too painful to contemplate the consequences. Denial is the natural response.

I suspect the undecided are really in the denial category.

Why scientists "believe", or shall we say "accept the theory", is also obvious. The theory fits the data perfectly and data doesn't lie.

Why average people do believe is not so obvious. I think the average "believer" believes in science and is concerned about the environment. They are bright enough to put two and two together. They probably believe that Global Warming is just another environmental problem that we can mitigate if we try hard enough. As soon as you push people, push the envelope of their beliefs, they push back. So when you pose it as a policy problem we can solve they are ok with it. When you pose it as an existential threat to humanity and the planet that only a fundamental rethinking of our society can solve, that's a different kettle of fish. Suddenly their belief isn't quite so firm. See the quote.

Good question. I've heard several people who don't know anything about global warming, or how physics and chemistry operate, declaim they "don't believe in global warming". Why? Often they grab onto one fact, and stick with it. One relative has explained to me repeatedly there's only a small amount of carbon dioxide in the air.

I'm baffled about this feature of modern American society: Everybody thinks they are an instant expert. They value their idea as much as they do somebody who has been studying a subject for decades.

Many people are convinced that the so-called Climate Change aka Man made Global Warming isn't real simply because Corrupted Alarmist and their Globalist financiers failed to proved their own junk science. 2nd its only a theory which has no legitimate validity to be implemented as Law to collect fraudulent/deceptive Carbon Taxes among the people. 3rd Carbon Taxes is not the solution in fact it would create more problems open for abuse and trade manipulations...

Wake-up people Man made Global Warming is a Scam, period.

Looking at Peter J's first answer

"A sense of scope. Human beings are a pittance on the earth."

It's clear that many people have this belief, which can only be described as religious, since there is no objective foundation for such a belief. By the way, when I say "religious," I don't mean that the belief is associated with any organized faith, in fact, the person may not even think of themselves as being religious, but it's clear that they are. There is plenty of objective evidence that human beings are changing the earth in MANY ways--it's virtually everywhere you look, even from orbit.

Past that I think that many people think they understand weather and climate because they live in it. They don't fully understand the concept of "average" or "global" or "trend," so if they see local, temporary evidence that things are not warming they interpret the science of global warming as being flawed. Unfortunately such a belief has a high correspondence with scientific illiteracy, which many people clearly suffer from.

Others don't believe it because that's what their leaders (Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, etc.) tell them to believe, and they are not capable or are too lazy to think for themselves.

Others just deny it because they're worried that they will get saddled with extra taxes that they don't want to pay and don't care enough about anyone but themselves to worry about future generations.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that Peter J's last point (can a point be pointless?) is easily answered. If we were on the verge of some catastrophic, predictable cooling then climate scientists would no doubt advocate warming the climate by artificial means--but probably not by telling people to drive their cars more, which would be inefficient. There are greenhouse gases other than CO2 which are far more effective and could be used.

I think that its due to hype and media information. People hear and see what they are told in different ways due to their level of education, understanding and background, based on what they know and believe they assimilate the information and make a decision and its true and right for them. When the melting of the ice caps first came to light the frenzy created implied an immediate flooding of the world as we know it and inland home owners would suddenly have beachfront dwellings. Naturally this didn't happen and so people became sceptical...regardless of the truth of the issue humans are not doing enough to protect the planet and the upcoming gimme gimme crowd who need immediate gratification are very likely to do much more and much worse than their elders did before they realise what's happening. The media (generally puppets for governments) and the governments all over the world like to keep society is a certain state/level of fear so that important issues and agendas are "hidden" or glossed over allowing them to do what they like when they like because the rest of us are running around with our heads in our hands worrying about immenent doom...war... or whatever is they latest fear frenzy item.

This answer gets asked all the time, and the best answer that I've ever heard was a response written by a Yahoo! member named gcnp58[1].

I'll just cut and paste his answer below:

<<<I think the thing to understand is that for the skeptics, it's not about the science. It's about something else. The quote from the Heartland guy at the opening of [Heartland's International Conference on Climate Change] is quite telling:

"Once lost, freedoms are often very difficult to retrieve.[2]"

That is an emotional appeal and has nothing to do with science. Look at the title of Stossel's closing talk: "Freedom and its Enemies." Skeptics are by and large scared of anthropogenic climate change being true, rather than objecting to it out of any sort of deep understanding of the science. For them, it *has* to be false, because if man is affecting climate, someone is going to take something away from them.

These are the same men, by and large, who objected to things like African-Americans getting the vote, the emancipation of women, gay rights etc. because they see life as a zero sum game. Any gain in freedom by another group is somehow seen as an assault on their "freedom." They also are scared of people who have the right to tell them "no," whether it is a woman in the bedroom or the black kid taking up "their" seat on the bus. Similarly, they see a call for a need for collective action to address climate change as the government "taking away" their freedom. As if freedom is equal to driving a huge truck and owning a huge screen television.

So it is not surprising to me they cling to the same stale scientific canards. They simply don't have the courage to "man up" and face the truth. Any little bit is enough to keep them thinking they are still the "real men of courage" and all of the people who timidly suggest that "gee, maybe consuming less wouldn't be so bad" are the pansies. Who knows, maybe these studly guys will inherit the Earth. The planet seems to have a sense of cosmic irony, if they get what they want they're probably going to deserve it.>>>

I'm convinced it is real, if we are discussing anthropogenic climate change, because of the effects that anthropogenically emitted greenhouse gases have in the atmosphere. I question the extent to which the effects will be felt. I know that diseases like warmer weather, I know that sea levels rise due to warming and the melting of ice caps, I believe that sea surface temperatures play a large role in hurricane force, I know that vegetation and growing cycle is dependent on other factors than how much CO2 is in the air, namely the abundance of water and rainfall so different areas will be affected by warming in a different way. I know that with greater temperatures comes more airborne moisture and a greater greenhouse effect, etc... And I know this through tests I have read about and seen other people do. The overall outcome of the warming I am not so sure about. However, if you look at data related to possible outcomes you'll see that many of them are, as scientists believe, following their scenerios to some extent. As solar output declines, however, I wonder how far it has to decline before we begin to see an actual cooling trend as that is where the energy comes from for the greenhouse effect, or if solar output will begin rising again and the greenhouse effect will increase.

Well, I understand the technical and scientific aspects fairly well, and I'm very convinced that it's real. I feel like, since the laws of physics say that carbon dioxide will always be a greenhouse gas, putting a lot of it in our atmosphere for over a hundred years has to have an effect. I also know that the statistics show that our planet has heated over that time period, and I don't think that could be coincidental, since there are no other reasons for it to change significantly (the Earth has not changed its rotation or tilt significantly, there is no significant change in volcanic activity, etc.).

The main reason people don't believe in AGW is the fact that science hasn't been shown to support the theory. And the multiple scandals have not helped the movement either. The most noticeable trend seems to be the more people learn about the science the less they believe.The up side to this is, the more people who don't believe are coming back to supporting actual pollution cleanup efforts, which were losing ground steadily over time as people were convinced agw was real. The trend has turned completely around over the last 10 years and we are getting back to real world cleanup efforts and support. In reality, if we spent half the money on pollution clean we do on trying to convince people of agw, there would be almost no pollution in the world. OK maybe that's a little far fetched, but in truth we would be much better off than the billions that are wasted now.