Why do global warming skeptics believe...?

a few skeptical scientists instead of the vast majority of the scientific community?





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_鈥?/a>





http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/fu鈥?/a>





A handful of articles from obviously biased media sources, instead of many hundreds of peer reviewed scientific papers with data that's been verified many times, taken from scientific journals?





http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Ima鈥?/a>





Why do they focus on Al Gore instead of people like this:





"Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives Tuesday to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"





鈥淒uPont believes that action is warranted, not further debate."





Charles O. Holliday, Jr., CEO, DuPont





Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point. You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."





Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA





And the vast majority of world leaders, right and left.|||This one's easy, it's mostly psychological.





The message is scary, and big. For some people, the only way to cope is through denial. It's one of the steps towards acceptance actually, anger, denial, bargaining, depression and acceptance. Some people just get stuck in denial, a lot more will go through it as they work through the concept.





I mean think about it, the media plays it like Armageddon is here, and that's scary stuff. It's like the panic message of the cold war, hide under your desk if you get nuked sort of thing.





Some people just can't handle it, it's too much. A big part of the problem is the media, with their very scary message.





I think one solution is to reframe it, to go from how bad it can get, to what you can do. You can't have people feeling helpless by telling them that they're basically leading to the end of the world, and you can't force them to change their ways of life. You have to ask them to live smarter.





It's like HIV, if you tell people "it's here, and it's going to kill us", they get really scared, instead you have to tell them "it's here, so wear a condom."





It's the same with climate change, you have to stop the message of "it's here and it's gonna kill us" and instead go to a message of "it's here, so do your part, use less energy, and vote for politicians who will make a difference."





Lastly, we have to stop looking down at people who are scared, it's natural to be scared of something so big, and their responses are natural. We need to help them come to terms with it, instead of forcing them to change their views.|||This question really fascinates me. Skeptics would prefer to believe a science fiction writer than the best climatologists in the world because his opinions are more convenient for them than reality. People trust scientists all the time, on a daily basis, but when it's something they don't want to believe all of the sudden it's "scientists used to think the sun revolved around the earth". Or even better they spout some bullshit about how scientists operate on faith and not the scientific method. What the hell is that? How many scientists do you know, star trek? What an ignorant and offensive statement.





Really what it all boils down to is that skeptics don't want to believe that we're responsible for global warming, and they'll accept any explanation that claims we're not. The opinion of scientific experts who disagree becomes less important than the opinion of a freaking science fiction writer who they want to beleive. They'll even believe that volcanoes, cow farts, and soda pop are responsible for global warming. It's amazing how readily people will believe what the want to believe regardless of the dearth of evidence that they're wrong.|||Because the science that the skeptic's use is SO MUCH STRONGER!! The alarmists use rhetoric to get you on their side, the skeptics use data. Now, to many average Americans, rhetoric convinces them better, because it makes them feel, rather than think, about the subject.





Ok, your first point. EVERYONE is BIASED in one way or another. And there are MANY, MANY sources that argue global warming, and do it very well, with good, sound science.





Second point. Just because these Newt Gingrich and Charles Holliday guys have impressive-sounding credentials, doesn't mean we should believe them. It doesn't matter how impressive they sound. Are these people really qualified to make statements about this? For example, in Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" book, he lists a bunch of Nobel Prize winners who signed some stupid contract saying that global warming is accepted as true by a "consensus of scientists." Now, because they are Nobel Prize winners, they sound credible, right? But if you look at what they won Nobel Prizes for, half of them are doctors, some are physicists, and the rest are chemists. The only ones of them who would have any understanding of the science of global warming at all would be the physicists, but they're not even really qualified. So stop this "Appeal to Authority" business. It's nonsense.





And what that Charles O. Holliday guy says is a total lie. Of course you can find intelligent, quantitative arguments against global warming! (Start with the Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming, or the Great Global Warming Swindle.) Sure, you can find some to support it, too, but in general, the mainstream opinion seems to be more of a political agenda than a scientific debate.





And as for the Jerry Mahlman quote, notice how he says "world leaders," not "world scientists." It's the "Appeal to Authority" all over again!





I am a true-blue, through-and-through skeptic, and Mr. Bob, I am one because I have researched and used my brain a bit, and I can see through the shallow arguments of your "vast majority of the scientific community," thank you very much.|||We could be dealing with no winters on Earth and still have to go through the same marketing and profits schemes. Book and movie demand will fizzle plus every possible study commission, and they will re-invent wheel three times, and then something might get done if we have moderately intelligent heads of states.|||It's not a question of belief - it's a question of proof.





But you're right, we are also skeptical - it's not just that it's not proven, it's that we think you're FOS. We think you're FOS about the present climate because you're willing to lie about the past climate in order to convince those who are too intellectually lazy to research it for themselves.|||The thing is, for the first 90 or so years of the automobile industy, the scientific community found the vehicle emissions did NOT have cabon DIOXIDE, but carbon MONOXIDE.... So what has changed in our fuel??? Or could it be that some people are just after some publicity??? Yes, we are ADDING to global warming, but CAUSING it???? How hot was the planet when the dinosaurs lived? What changes have science said there have been to our heater in the sky, the sun? NONE!!! Carbon dioxide IS up, and the rainforests are down (rainforests account for 20 % of the conversion of carbon dioxide to oxygen) so we are contributing... And do you realize that it takes heat to generate electricity? and heat is one of the byproducts of USING electricity??? And 6 billion people with a body heat of 98.6 degrees is also adding to the temperature of the air worldwide!!!! Someone (a scientist) just said last week that if we do not reverse global warming in the next 10 years it will be too late!!!! Yet our revered scientists that you quote only make suggestions on how to slow it.... None of them, no government, no known individuals... are working on a way to reduce it..... Does none of this seem strange to you? Let's all use a little common sense and try to figure out how to reverse the process instead of trying to assign blame.... Maybe if all the "hot air" produced talking about who's at fault were put into trying to get us out of this


, we might be all right!!!!!!!!!!!!|||Science does not follow the rule of popularity.





The majority of scientists did not accept evolution 100 years ago.





Skeptics are not believing the scientists, btw. They are believing the science. You claim to be an educator, but from every indication, it does not seem to be in a scientific field. The conclusions being made by governmental and bureaucratic "leaders" have misappropriated the "majority" view. Hitler had a "majority" of scientists backing up his views on Aryanism through the science of eugenics - scientific thought that goes back to the time of Plato. We had many scientists and politicians who espoused eugenics, and yes, we had laws in the US that were based on eugenics. We saw how that all turned out...|||from what i have seen on this web site its mostly pro-bush and his party Americans who are sceptical of global warming.





so its all about politics not what people actually believe.|||Because our planets orbit is not totally constant. We orbit a variable star. We are currently in a warming period between Ice Ages that started thousands of years ago and we clearly did not have anything to do with - it is all part of the natural cycles.


The people who call themselves "scientists" today mostly rely on faith and not on proven scientific method|||People don't want to just 'argue it away'. There is scientific evidence that proves we are not the highest contribute rs to global warming and that this is not even permanent. Its just that the media doesn't think it's worthy for news or consideration. The earth is a powerful force and we were put on it to live here. We are not servants to the earth and neither will the earth lie down and let us walk all over her. The earth is powerful and it's going to do what it wants to do. Look at Hurricane Katrina. Are you saying we now have the power to CONTROL the earth's will? We do not! And I'm not saying that we should just pollute the earth every chance we get. It is incredible that science is moving in a way that will give us cleaner air and fuel efficient power and cars that run on corn, but what people don't ever hear about is that the air is cleaner than its been in a long time. In the 70s it was horrid, but now its GETTING BETTER and most people don't realise that.|||Being in the majority doesn;t mean being in the right. Otherwise the sun would revolve the earth.