How can people still deny global warming?

97% of all climatologists agree that it is real. 99.7% of all recent peer reviewed articles on the subject agree that it is true. There is a mass scientific consensus in this area. No credible institution has claimed it to be false(However some have taken non-committal stances). There seems to be no credible voices to support the opposition. The only people that seem to say it is false are cranks, special interest and puppets of the special interest. Do people really believe there is a liberal science conspiracy? Seriously how can people at least not consider it at least very likely?


Vulken do you have any proof of this? What is to be gained by falsifying evidence?And don't you think more climatologist would have integrity than 3%? Also 3% don't deny it either most of the 3% are not sure.

Update 3:

Actually the consensus is about 99.83% on peer reviewed articles. Averaging about 1 new study denying it a year, compared to thousands confirming it be true.

Update 4:

TheSicilianSage More details and a source please. Also how this disproves climate change.

Update 5:

John Purdue, so your saying because you think the idea is laughable its not true, when there is a mass scientific consensus. So we don't have the power to destroy the planet? What if we unleashed all our Nuclear warheads; no power to destroy the planet? Jesus, at least give me a bullshit crank science claim to debunk.

Update 6:

Ed Smurf there are plenty of people saying that the earth is getting cooler and we're heading towards an ice age.

Update 7:

TheSicilianSage I watched that documentary you linked and it has a few problems, actually more than a few.

Carl Wunsch was tricked into appearing in the film and misquoted to support there view here is a quote from him "I believe that climate change is real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component." -

Patrick Michaels is paid off by oil companies -

Scientific Institutions are usually 501(c)3 organizations, so there is not a strong profit motive. And even with scientist not wanting to lose there jobs, there still is oversight be senior members. Are you actually suggesting that only 3% of climatologist have integrity. They are politicizing science just as much as supporters of the belief are, and are trying to argue that climate change believers are Anti-Human.

Not to mention other fallacies(The following are debunke

9 Answers

  • 8 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    There is this book called "merchants of doubt" which explains everything.

    Basically there is this group of paranoid pro free market maniacs who believe any government intereference is a sign of incoming communism. I am not making this up, this exactly their thinking.

    Men like Fred Singer, Frederick Seitz, Jastrow , Nierenberg - all great scientists but damaged from the Cold War experience.

    Some are dead some are still alive and preaching this poison.

    Their goal is not to refute with proof that the consensus exists, but to create 'doubt" and to create a 'debate" where none should be.

    In the 1950s they created ( with funds from the tobacco industry ) the "cigarettes cause cancer" *debate* - when scientists knew in unanimity it was so. Eventually the mountain of proof grew so large that even they could not keep saying it wasn't real.

    But since then, they - and the industry affected by every situatioin - has used teh 'tobacco strategy' at every turn:

    The SDI ( or Star Wars project ), Ozone hole, acid rain and now finally they have arrived on global warming, or to be more precise anthropogenic global warming.

    First they denied it. The proof kept mounting that temperatures have been rising steadily since the 1940s, then they claimed it is not "man made". And then when they couldn't say that anymore either they claimed "we can adapt to it". But when we look at nature, animals "adapt" in millions of years, NOT less than a century.

    And as the proof kept pilling up they created a "debate". This is why we have a 'debate" about global warming when all climate scientists without an agenda already KNOW there is an agreement.

    Who benefits and funds these institutions like the Marshall Institute ( who blatantly attacks fellow scientists and uses incredibly lowly tactics from bribing to falsifying reports ) ?

    The oil and energy industry of course because they would be the most punished by their lack of care for the environment.

    The lobby in the US is so strong and the people are so stupid that that country is the only one who did not sign the Kyoto agreement when the rest of the world DID.

    Youtube thumbnail

    Check this video. See the "dislikes"? This is how efficient this tactic is. People are that stupid that they actually become agents of enforcement of the denying policy. And youtube is a den of stupidity.

    Source(s): Excerpt from : And ( a book which i truly recommend as an eye opener ) Who is Fred Singer exactly? Well let's find out:
  • 8 years ago

    I don't think anyone can. When we look at the answers below, the problem is, no one is really willing to do anytthing about it. We would have to invest in wind power (gosh-that would cost money...which every source of energy exploration has costed). It would cost a change in our behavior-- no way!!! Not mine! You can change, but, I'm gonna be the same that I've alway's been! Damn those polar bears! I don't live on the East coast...they should have bought some flood insurance. Not my problem. The American people do NOT care until it effects them personally.

  • 6 years ago

    It's because people are afraid of change and when people are afraid of change they will do ANYTHING to protect their old ways of life.

    Now there are corrupt politicians in this field of science as well as other fields who are trying to make this into a profits gain which WON'T stop Global Warming.

    It is good to stop burning fossil fuels but education is the key not forced regulations which will and HAS shut down businesses and sending companies over seas to slave labor places where you don't have to pay workers very much.

    An example of being doing things voluntary thru education instead of rigid law enforcement would be the law on seatbelts.

    Studies have shown when seatbelt laws were not mandatory between the late 70s and mid 80s over half the people voluntary used them and severe injury accidents declined sharply.


    he first few years Seat Belt laws were enforced the accident rates with severe injuries stopped declining and actually started rising again as people openly opposed being forced and would try to *Get away with it* accepting getting tickets.

    In the early 1960s there were actually seat belt inspection stations where you could voluntary check you're car to see if it's compatible for a seatbelt and buy one on the spot.

    I found an article on it on a news archive once.

    Anyways one sad thing is without education we don't need tyranny to screw us. We will do a good enough job on our own!

    Education and opportunity are the main keys to success which both are lacking due to people higher up that are neither progressive or Conservatives!

  • 8 years ago

    I would have to see what the climate is over a 20-30 year period before I would make any decision on that. But if there is global warming and it is man made, there is really nothing you can do about it. So instead of wasting trillions of dollars that we don't have fighting a losing battle, it would be a lot smarter to learn how to adjust to those changes

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 8 years ago

    No one is denying global warming. What whey deny is the cause. Global warming is the reason their is life on this planet. Without global warming this planet would be an ice ball.

  • 8 years ago

    Many people working in industry don't want it to be true.

  • Thalia
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    Most people are not scientifically inclined and so scientific consensus is meaningless to them. They follow things like talk-back radio instead and adopt opinions from that.

  • Vulken
    Lv 6
    8 years ago

    climatologists get money if they agree it's happening.

    You know I don't doubt that it is, what I do doubt is that it's man made.

    I figure if it was hot during the Jurassic period then why wouldn't the Earth go back to that climate.

  • Jonny
    Lv 6
    8 years ago


Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.