Do you agree that Global Skeptics don't understand the science.?

Question

It seems to me that they come up with ridiculous arguments that show that they are getting their arguments from....well I don't know where, maybe the mainstream media?

For example, when I read a post that says, "The last two years have been colder than before......" I know straight away that they are grasping at straws and don't know anything about statistics. The other one I love is the Mars comparison...like Mars has an atmosphere??? and my other personal favourite is, there have been times 300 million years ago when the earth was hotter. Once again, no understanding about the successional, geologic, atmospheric changes that have occured over this time and that man has only been around for a few million years. Anyhow, tell me what you think and maybe give me some other examples that demonstrate their lack of understanding.

Additional Details

Oh and there's the other one...all those experts who say Gloabal warming is real are deliberately lying because of some government conspiracy to implement carbon taxes. Fair dinkum, scientists are paid to be impartial. No decent scientists is going to ruin their professional reputation like that.

I find it sad that a couple of people who posted here have multiple ID's. maybe if you spent less time on your computer posting misinformation from the website funded by Exxonmobil and more time educating yourself your life wouldn't be so empty. get the raw data and analyse it yourself before you criticise the results...if you can. What? You don't even have a science degree let alone any real grasp on statistical analysis? That would explain your stand. I am putting the deniers up there with creationists for the obvious reasons.
I would love to give best answer status to a couple of posters here but unfortunately i can only choose one. Sorry to the others. As for the deniers, you have gone ahead and proven yourselves to be what you are and all that I have outlined here. The fact you felt the need to post answers to a question that wasn't even directed to you shows how ignorant and rude you truly are.

Answer 1

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

It isn't necessary to agree, they continue to prove it with the questions and answers they keep posting.
The example I would give (from someone who claims to be the most knowledgeable here) was that the atmospheric pressure of Mars was the same as the Earth at 10000m this would come as a great surprise to those who have stood at the top of Everest and lived because on Mars they would die in seconds form the much lower pressure which is ~1% of Earths.

As if to prove the point you have James E answer
First a groundless attack on education
then a list of supposed lies with nothing to back them up, looking at those listed lies 1 at a time

1) The graph in (2) answer most of this one it is also fact that the sun has been closely monitored for the last 30 years, as the Earth has continued to warm, and the Sun isn't to blame
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11…
2) "It has never been this hot in all of history"
He is only talking of the last 1000 years, his claims of 3°c warmer than today are nonsense this is the combined results of a dozen different research efforts it show no such thing
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/…

3) "The Arctic Ocean has never been this ice free in history."
Yet again not a shred of evidence in fact there is simple evidence this claim is not true, the locations of the viking settlements in Greenland were all in SW Greenland an area that is ice free in summer today as it was then, they didn't settle any further up the coast then these areas.

"Truth is that during the Holocene, Roman and Medieval periods the Arctic Ocean was navigable most of the year most of the time. It was even more navigable during WWII than it is currently."

Nothing in this is supportable by evidence The romans were not active in the arctic using ships the only people in the medieval period who were active were the vikings and they only traveled to places that are ice free in summer today and their settlement dwellings were designed for very harsh winter weather with even the animals being kept in the main dwelling for warmth. And finally WWII, you must be kidding, again this is easy to disprove the sign of less ice is the opening of the northwest passage (which opened last year) this would have been high on the list of all the waring countries as a supply line yet it was crossed only twice in 1940 and 1944, the 44' trip by the same person, described as swift compared to the 1st took 28months, that doesn't sound very ice free to me
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_p…

Asker's Rating:

Asker's Comment:

antarcticice, i like your answers. i've seen you post a few times and agree with you most of the time. I think you sais in one other post that you were in Tassie? I'm in Hobart. If you want you can contact me if you seea post that needs fervent criticism. My email is [e-mail]

Answer 2

It is all made up so the people will accept the carbon taxes .

Answer 3

If you look at the correlation between solar activity and global warming, there is absolutely no doubt what the cause is. If you truly want to LEARN, read/listen to the programs at this link: http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/proce… . Then you can come back and apologize to us.

Oh and BTW. Would you say that over 31,072 American scientists including over 9,021 with PhDs "don't understand science?" Check out this link: http://www.petitionproject.org .

Edit: To Martin... Instead of addressing the issues raised by the International Conference on Climate Change, you choose to question their sponsor's motives. How typical! And yet NO ONE challenges the motives of global warming scientists. Isn't that interesting.

Well for your information, The Heartland Institute, a non-profit organization, has commissioned and published several policy studies on the science and economics of climate change. More than 100 academics and professional economists participate in Heartland’s peer review process, and nearly 100 experts on the staffs of other think tanks serve as contributing editors of Heartland’s publications. Approximately 400 state elected officials serve on Heartland’s Board of Legislative Advisors, providing feedback and guidance to Heartland’s staff.

Funding for The Heartland Institute comes primarily from charitable contributions. Funds from corporations represented less than 20 percent of Heartland’s annual budget in 2007, and no corporation gave more than 4 percent of Heartland’s budget that year. No contributions from any energy corporations are being used to support this conference.

Edit (again) to Martin: So because Heartland has conservative leanings they are to be ignored. Is that where this is coming from? Well many conservatives believe in global warming and many Liberals don't, so how is that even relevant? Are you willing to apply the same criteria to pro-global warming organizations funding research that are Liberal? I thought not.

Answer 4

No. In reality, the global warming alarmists have fooled millions of people into thinking there is a crisis when there is none. I pity them and will resist their efforts to destroy our freedom.

Answer 5

AGW is just to easy to prove false, it is the low quality of modern education that prevents many who see that it is wrong from clearly documenting the errors in logic, science and history so obvious to those with a decent education.

First lie.
In the last 50, 100 or 150 years temperatures have risen faster and higher than any time in history.

It is the sun all by itself because when we have a lot of sunspots things get hot, when the sun has no spots it gets cooler so it is simple and easy. Truth is, in every previously recorded climate optimum period it has gotten hotter faster than it has currently. In fact the year 1400 warming went from the bottom of the wolf minimum to a peak 3°c hotter than our current maximum and down to the bottom of the Sporer minimum the coldest part of the little ice age in about 100 years. Also the current climate optimum is the coldest ever recorded and is as cold as at least one historical climate minimum the Oort the came in the early part of the MWP.

Second lie.
It has never been this hot in all of history.

Truth is that at least 3 times in the last 1,000 years it has exceeded our current temperature by up to 3°c, once for several hundred years.

Third lie
The Arctic Ocean has never been this ice free in history.

Truth is that during the Holocene, Roman and Medieval periods the Arctic Ocean was navigable most of the year most of the time. It was even more navigable during WWII than it is currently.

So it is not very difficult for anyone with a decent basic education to put the lie to any point the AGW crowd use to sell their pogrom to the less well educated.

The real problem here is believers cherry pick the evidence they want made public while skeptics feel that the general public should be allowed to learn the full truth about climate variations. Believers on the other hand only want the public to know about selected items that can be spun to favor their political pogrom.

Answer 6

"...like Mars has an atmosphere" ? "scientists are paid to be impartial. No decent scientists is going to ruin their professional reputation like that"

Seriously ? Skeptics don't know science ? Actually Mars does have an atmosphere, mostly made up of CO2, and according to probes we've placed there over the years, Mars has warmed by similar percentages as the earth, during the same period - it seems to be a solar function.

And, as you get older, you'll realize that most climate scientists work for a gov't and are paid by bureaucrats. Al Gore's chief global warming scientist, who works for NASA, published temperatures for October 2008 saying they were the warmest on record. Other, non-gov't scientists pointed out the the October temps were the same as September - Al Gore's man and republished Sept temps as Oct temps ! Deniability ? Mistake ? Or does Al finance his numbers ? Scientists aren't stupid - they get their project money from gov't grants, and they know that an anti-UN study will not get funded !

Answer 7

They don't want to understand, that's why they link the heartland institute rather than a legitimate source.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11…

They believe right-wing think tanks and quote ridiculous fallacies: "mars was warming too, therefore the sun is the cause"

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/…
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/…

They think a fraudulent internet petition that anyone can sign without any credential checking proves something:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWPetition.…

Only two things can make people stop thinking: politics and religion

global warming denial is a right-wing political movement, it has no scientific basis.

EDIT

For those who do not know, the Heartland Institute is a right-wing think tank, it does not participate in scientific peer-review because libertarianism and conservatism are not sciences. The Heartland Institute has as much scientific credibility as MoveOn.org. The fact that global warming deniers are restricted to citing RW think-tanks indicates very clearly that this is not scientific debate.

Answer 8

common seance out side says is it is not getting hot-er

Answer 9

Most of these people never go to college.

Some regular contributors here get paid to ask the same question again and again.

Answer 10

You seem to have it all backwards. Scientists are supposed to be skeptical. Science is not a matter of consensus. The consensus was that the world was flat until science PROVED it was not. The consensus was that the earth was the center of the solar system until science PROVED that it was not. Can you show me a single scientist who does not agree with these two scientific facts now that they have been proven?

Man Made Global Warming is flat earth science. There is no proof of it. There are plenty of scientists that do not agree with the premise at all. There are many scientists that have serious unanswered questions about the numbers, the methodology and conclusions.

If there are valid unanswered questions about a claim it is not a fact. That so little effort is put into answering those questions and so much effort is put into silencing the questioners should set off alarm bells in your head. They cannot attack the valid arguments put up by the skeptics so they attack the skeptics.

The reasons for this hoax is monetary. There have been a series of these since the Federal Government began to dump billions of dollars into Universities. Money has corrupted them. The more of a crisis you can concoct, the more money you will get.

Add to this the Socialists who wish to destroy the industrial base that provides America's wealth as well as opportunists like Al Gore who are already in the business of selling "carbon credits" and you begin to see the big picture.

*

Answer 11

I've gotta say Mike, that no, I don't agree with you at all, but then again, I was one of 'them' you were talking about, the anonymous scientists.

Everyone has an ax to grind, whether it's protecting a job, looking for advancement, or cultivating friends in the field, there are biases to the presentation of all research. Research methodology is supposed to minimize the influence of bias, but no scientist is under the illusion that any study is clear of bias. The science of Phrenology, reading the bumps on a persons' head, was widely accepted not so long ago, and rebels like Louis Pasteur suffered for their disbelief.

Research being performed now is only good for adding to the weight of data. It's too early to make concrete distinctions. It may be required that we use educated guesswork to form policy, but by no means does any creditable scientist believe that we've got anything but a rough idea of what's going on.

Answer 12

So, what do you know about statistics that tells us it's warmer now?

Answer 13

Global Warming is a fact. The last 12,000 years show that from many sources.

THE IDIOTS ARE THE CARBON DIOXIDE FOOLS THAT ARE WASTING PRECIOUS FUNDS!!!

Answer 14

Not always. Some of them understand the science well, they simply choose to fight public understanding of it because they don't want to be inconvenienced. Some are even paid to spread misinformation to delay action, just as tobacco companies did to delay controls on their products. In fact, some of the exact same people have been involved in both disinformation campaigns.

Mars does occasionally come up because there is data to show that it may be warming slightly... over two Martian years of data. The same people who propose that as evidence attack the accuracy of thousands of data points globally on the earth for 120+ years (plus thousands of data points from 650,000 years of ice core data and past millions of years of geologic records, less broadly sampled aroudn the globe), yet they offer minimal data from Mars as if it were far more credible. Mars's brief and minimal theorized warming is offered to claim that the Sun is warming the solar system, but the Mars changes appear to be from weather, dust storms, and other planets such as Uranus are not heating as they would be if their point had any merit.

Once again the "skeptical" story is revealed to be based on blatant, intentional misinformation.

What kind of person manufactures or propagates that sort of material when billions of human lives are at stake? They should be held liable, just as the tobacco companies were.

I've identified 4 easy ways that scientists could disprove climate change theory:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/?qid=2…

Here's a fifth. If the relative temperatures of Earth, Mars and Venus did not fully support greenhouse gas theory given the gas composition of their atmospheres, that would be very, very easy for skeptics to show. I have never seen that argument made. Apparently it's too outrageous even for the pseudo-scientists paid to manufacture garbage propaganda to confuse people. If I've simply missed the scientific paper in which skeptics explain the absolute and relative temperatures Earth, Mars, and Venus without greenhouse gas theory, perhaps someone could direct us to it?

Answer 15

i totally agree with you. I study this for a degree, and obviously the people who learn about it and study the statistics every day for there job!! haha. I think its stupid people clutch at straws when they dont understand the science, though i actually find it rather amusing.

Answer 16

The science that is used to support the Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming is badly flawed.

The data that is used for the determination of surface temperatures comes from thermometers placed at various locations in the environment.

It is very important that the thermometers be placed correctly or the temperature readings are not an accurate reflection of the temperature changes caused by Anthropogenic Global Warming.

A number of those thermometers have been discovered to have been placed next to chimneys, hot air exhausts of commercial buildings, next to asphalt parking lots and in one case over a barbecue.

Temperature readings at these locations do not reflect temperature changes due to Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Thermometers in those locations merely reflect temperature changes due to activity in that immediate location.

It appears to me that the Global Warming Believers and other assorted hysterics associated with that movement do not understand science sufficiently to gather accurate and reliable data.

This is not surprising. When I taught Biochemistry at the University of California, we often counseled the students who were failing to change their major to something like the Climate Sciences which were much less rigorous than the hard sciences such as Biochemistry.

The quality of the "scientists" in the Climate sciences is much less than the quality of the scientists in the hard sciences.

The poor quality of the data collection by the climate "scientists" is the result.

Without accurate and reliable data all of the predictions based on that data are useless for all practical purposes.

Answer 17

Mars has an atmosphere, it is just very thin.

The reason I think so little of this alarmist theory is that it is not about facts. It's about money.

No scientist will destroy their reputation??? Are you forgetting the scientists that injected diseases into black Americans without their knowledge to test cures? Their are always scientists that are just test tube whores. Some scientists even make a living by lying in court about the findings of other scientists.

Answer 18

truth is, it's not as important any more.
the oil lobby will be out of the white house in less than a month.
several of Obama's appointments understand the problems posed by AGW.
the deniers just don't matter much any more.

however, one might note that this was/is one of their favorite places to hang out.
anyone can be as inciteful, or as dense, as they want to be.
there is no price to be paid, or benefit to be gained, in the real world, that's related to what one posts here.

we see posts claiming that there's enough oil in the US to sustain us for 100 years.
or that warming is a good thing.
or that if it was good for the dinosaurs, it'll be good for us too.

the only reason i answer is that there may be some that are posting honest questions.
the ones that concern me are the students that are looking to write a paper for a teacher who claims that AGW is not real.
that seems to happen in the coal belt more than anywhere else.

however, sometimes there are fun questions. like:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;…

<<i have to write a funny essay on how we can speed up the process of global warming, any ideas>>

so i thought, "bring back the Stanley Steamer, and use coal, but be sure to use regenerative braking, to make it eco-friendly."
some days are better than others.

Answer 19

I would say that many so-called 'skeptics' or believers do not have much understanding of science, however many do.

The difference between the average person who is a believer and a skeptic is that the believer does not seem to wish to understand any science and will accept whatever is being spoon-fed to them as absolute proof without bothering to look into the science or even attempt to question it.

The 'skeptic' on the other hand does exactly what a true scientist is supposed to do, that is to be skeptical about any new theory and then try to either prove or disprove the theory through controlled experiments and analysis of the data etc.

A true scientist would never say that something was a proved fact until he/she had the proof needed to verify that theory and would only rely on a computer as a tool to speed up any calculations of acquired data.
A true scientist does not try to use a computer model in order to try and prove their theory.
A true scientist is always open to debate and willing to admit errors or flaws if they are found, unlike the so-called scientists who are constantly promoting this myth, and will attempt every way they can to modify the computer models in order to 'prove' that they were correct.
The fact is that there is no proof that mankind could ever be responsible for any weather change at all. Even the most basic science would show that mankind will never have the kind of power required to influence even localized weather conditions, let alone on a global scale. This type of belief is pure arrogance and now greed is playing an ever increasing role in perpetuating this myth.

Actually the only thing which would be required by the skeptics, would be even a slight thread of actual evidence that our climate is anything more than what is natural and that mankind has had or could have any impact at all, then us so-called skeptics would begin to take it seriously.
Unless that happens, which I can not foresee ever happening, it is only sensible for everyone to remain skeptical and not take anything at face value and believe something simply because it sounds good or that it is what you prefer to accept without looking at the facts.

It is very easy to be brainwashed if you are unwilling to learn some science and history and simply believe whatever the media wishes to promote through its hype.
It is much more difficult to be brainwashed if you are able to think for yourself and not simply be a follower of whatever the current fad is.

You are wrong about these comments coming out of the mainstream media since it is the mainstream media which perpetuates this myth.

You are correct that a comparison to Mars is very weak but nowhere near as weak as attempting to compare earth to Venus as many believers like to do.

Actually I would say that the last three years have shown a rapid decline in global temperatures (if a few tenths of a degree really means much) and we have not seen a warmer year globally since the peak of 1998 when this first became an issue.
Granted 1998 was an exceptionally warm year for most of the planet, but one year of warmer than normal conditions does not indicate that there is going to be more in the future or has anything to do with climate or climate change.

I do think that the reference to times in the past which are believed to have been much warmer even before man existed has some validity since it is attempting to point out one simple concept, that man was NOT around at that time and that this was a natural event which would have occurred whether man was here or not.

I would have to say that I agree that the so-called 'experts' do have an agenda, and the politicians have jumped on this gravy train more as an easy money maker, some honestly believe it, most could care about nothing other than what they think will win them the next election and boost their popularity and profits.

While I do see some of the 'skeptics' comments as being rather weak and sometimes completely ludicrous, I find many more believers' comments to be far worse.

A few examples:

1) "Carbon dioxide levels have increased 100 fold in the last 150 years and this is all due to man's burning of fossil fuels! This is causing the planet to burn UP! WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING NOW BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE PEOPLE! WAKE UP!!!" (Wrong, ignorant, and hysterical)

The fact is that carbon dioxide levels are well within normal levels and mans' contribution currently stands at 0.8% addition to natures normal production which vegetation quickly absorbs for its food.

2) "Carbon dioxide is a major greenhouse gas" (Wrong)

Carbon dioxide is a very minor greenhouse gas and in the available concentrations of 0.036-8% could have no measurable impact on climate.

3) "Electric cars and cars which run on hydrogen produce no pollution or greenhouse gasses" (Wrong and misguided)

It takes energy to produce electricity. Batteries require much more input charge than what could be delivered. Although battery technology has been improving over the last few years, there will never be a battery which will supply the same amount of power as what was put in to charge it. Therefore if you think that electric vehicles are either clean or green you have another think coming to you. Also it takes a tremendous amount of energy to break the moleculer bonds of water to create hydrogen to use as a fuel.

4) "The earth has been rapidly increasing in temperature for the last 150 years and this is all down to man!" (Wrong and without justification)

This type of statement has no merit or justification and is completely false. The last 150 years has not shown any more of a rapid increase in temperatures than has been occurring for the last 15000 years.
This however is based on assumptions and the best guesswork that science can use for data and nobody really could accurately tell you what the global temperatures were like even 50 years ago.

I could give many other examples, and there are some examples that some skeptics have used which I am never too sure whether they actually believe what thay said or if it was intended as a joke.

The fact is that whether global warming continues or not, it will not be drastic and will not happen rapidly. No matter what happens, it will be at the hands of nature and man will have had no influence.

I feel sad for the youngsters today who are constantly being bombarded by this nonsense and having it taught to them in school as if it were fact.

It is far better to be skeptical than gullible.

Answer 20

The problem you are having is it is history and geology where the information is available that debunks AGW with ease. The answer on C02 rise in relation to temps is that Co2 always trails temp rises. The sun warms the oceans and as they warm their ability to retain Co2 in solution weakens. The more the oceans warm, the more Co2 they release to feed the plant life that can now survive in warmer climates. This reduction of Co2 in solution also lowers the pH of the water because pH goes up and down accordingly to the amount in solution.

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/research/g…
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spen…
http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/1425chap…
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?f…


AGW is just to easy to prove false, it is the low quality of modern education that prevents many who see that it is wrong from clearly documenting the errors in logic, science and history so obvious to those with a decent education.

First lie.
In the last 50, 100 or 150 years temperatures have risen faster and higher than any time in history.

It is the sun all by itself because when we have a lot of sunspots things get hot, when the sun has no spots it gets cooler so it is simple and easy. Truth is, in every previously recorded climate optimum period it has gotten hotter faster than it has currently. In fact the year 1400 warming went from the bottom of the wolf minimum to a peak 3°c hotter than our current maximum and down to the bottom of the Sporer minimum the coldest part of the little ice age in about 100 years. Also the current climate optimum is the coldest ever recorded and is as cold as at least one historical climate minimum the Oort the came in the early part of the MWP.

Second lie.
It has never been this hot in all of history.

Truth is that at least 3 times in the last 1,000 years it has exceeded our current temperature by up to 3°c, once for several hundred years.

Third lie
The Arctic Ocean has never been this ice free in history.

Truth is that during the Holocene, Roman and Medieval periods the Arctic Ocean was navigable most of the year most of the time. It was even more navigable during WWII than it is currently.

So it is not very difficult for anyone with a decent basic education to put the lie to any point the AGW crowd use to sell their pogrom to the less well educated.

The real problem here is believers cherry pick the evidence they want made public while skeptics feel that the general public should be allowed to learn the full truth about climate variations. Believers on the other hand only want the public to know about selected items that can be spun to favor their political pogrom.

Interesting point here is that skeptics provide evidence and discuss it as to its relevance while the faithful believers make smart guy remarks and try to trash those who take what they see as heretical positions. How long before the faithful drag out the stretching racks dipping chairs and guillotines to bring the heretics into line with the consensus doctrines?

Answer 21

correcting your errors in the sequence you presented them.
#1 the last 2 years HAVE been colder than the years that immediately preceded them.(doesn't mean much in a 13,000 year warming trend but its true)
#2 mars has an atmosphere that's composed of 95% co2, it also has clouds,wind storms & tornado's "or dust devils" but its atmosphere is so thin that the surface pressure is only 2 to 3 oz per square inch compared to earths 13 to 14 lbs. per sq. inch.
#3 there have been many times in the earths history when its been very much hotter than it is currently. in fact there are abundant fossils of dinosaurs & crocodilians found as far north as 75 degrees latitude near the north pole when the ground can be thawed out enough to dig..
#4 man has not been around a few million years. depending on your definition of man we have only been around for less than 150,000 years & men exactly like us for only 60,000 years or less.
there were man like creatures that used tools & fire possibly as much as 1/2 million years ago but they were quite different from us.(this has Absolutely no bearing on the discussion its just one more thing you got wrong)
library card's are free.I suggest you get one.

Source(s):

if its not printed on paper in a hard cover book its only preliminary speculation.

Answer 22

There is currently no evidence that man has made any significant contribution to climate change.

Some interesting facts.
1. During most of the past 2,000 years, the temp has been about the same or higher. Currently, we are barely over the average for the last 2,000 years.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.…

2. During the medieval warm period (820 – 1040 AD), Greenland supported farming. Those areas previously farmed are now covered in glaciers. Obviously the melting and reformation of glaciers is a cyclical occurrence.

3. The earth experienced a little ice age which ended around the late 1860's or so. This is about the time man started recording temperatures. This would be like measuring a lake depth after a severe drought, then worrying about it flooding as it rose to normal levels.

4. The earth has been warming for the last 18,000 years, since the last major glacier time period. During this time frame, the glaciers have been melting at a fairly consistent rate. Also, for most of the last 1 billion years, the earth had NO glaciers or ice coverage.
http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/i…

5. The AGW theory states that CO2 is the primary driver of temperature. They arrived at this idea because they did not know of anything else which could cause it. But during the 70's and during the current decade, temperatures dropped while CO2 continued to rise. This means that natural occurrences are driving temp, not CO2.

6. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation and sun spots provides a much better correlation to earths' temperature than CO2 levels ever have.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/200…
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/…

7. Polar Bears are experiencing a population boom. Coke sales in the arctics are through the roof. Polar Bears have been around for thousands of years, and remember, we are only at the average for the last 2,000 years. They lived through all the previously warmer climates. The original picture of 2 bears on a floating ice block was a complete scam. The photographer explained that the bears were in no danger and close to shore. The picture was lifted from a public PC by another passenger and sent around the world.

8. Many glaciers are expanding. Even Antarctica is growing on 98% of is land mass. Only 2% is melting.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1…


9. There is no consensus on AGW. This was a lie that has been propagated by the media.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckt…

10. Yes we emit CO2 into the atmosphere and it is a greenhouse gas, but, we only contribute about .28% of all the greenhouse effect. Water vapor makes up about 95% of the greenhouse effect. CO2 and other trace gases round out the greenhouse gases at about 5% for all of them. Of that 5%, only 3% is CO2, and most of that is natural. Again, our contribution to the greenhouse effect is a paltry .28%
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenh…

11. The spread of disease is not attributed mainly to temperature. If this were the case, Florida would be a giant festering disease ridden cesspool. Economic standing is the primary determining factor in the spread of disease. Poor cultures can not fight the disease or eradicate the pests like more successful nations.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12077886…

12. Natural climate disasters (hurricanes, cyclones, etc) have never been scientifically linked to global warming (whether natural or man made).
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppa…
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?i…

Answer 23

Why are James E and Roger D answer the same

Answer 24

I do agree. I also think it's funny that some layman who's never gone beyond high school science thinks he knows something about global warming that a climate scientist doesn't.

Mars is warming? Oh wow, you'd better let NASA know! CO2 lags behind temperature and can't cause warming? Dang, you'd better let physicists know that the greenhouse effect is fake! The sun is causing global warming? You'd better tell solar physicists that their satellite instruments monitoring solar output are wrong!

Every global warming "skeptic" argument can be disproven with scientific facts. Usually it only takes a couple of minutes tops to find the data to disprove them. The problem is that global warming "skeptics" don't care about science, facts, or reality. They're in denial, which is why I prefer to call them "deniers".

Source(s):

http://greenhome.huddler.com/wiki/global…

Answer 25

People dont believe in Global Warming because they will be dead before it hits them, and they dont give a **** about their kids kids.

Some of them can understand the science but seeing as they are all stupid enough to ignore it, it makes sense that a good proportion of them are stupid enough to not understand it.

GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL