<p>Who do so many people believe the Global Warming Scam?</p>
<p>I don't know who so many people Believe the Global Warming Sam.</p>
<p>I don't know. Perhaps it's the desire of humans to believe that they, either directly or as a result of their actions, can control what happens with the sky. That we are not just one species out of billions on Earth, but that we are omnipotent as well omniscient and therefore all other living things and all natural phenomena depend on us for existence.</p>
<p>Why do so many people believe the Global Warming is a Scam scam? </p>
<p>Global warming is real. However, I think we have bigger problems. We're running out of fossil fuels, and I think the break down of global civilization is inevitable with these current energy trends.</p>
<p>Probably because not enough people went to college, or they didn't go to good colleges where they could learn to read and analyze and think critically. You wouldn't believe how many people believe that global warming exists just because Al Gore says so.</p>
<p>But no one is answering the question. Who?</p>
<p>a little schpeal I wrote on a facebook group:</p>
<p>
<p>that's just the first graph I found. If you don't want to follow the link then I will explain the graph for you, basically it shows the number of pirates going down while global temperature increases. It is a skewed graph where the number of pirates goes from 35,000 up to 45,000 then down to 20,000 then 15,000 then 5000 then 400 then 17. While at first glance, this graph might show that less pirates=higher temperature, it instead proves my earlier point that correlation does not imply causation, as I hope that people here are educated enough to know that pirates have little effect on the environment.</p>
<p>The fact of the matter is this, while the increase of cars has raised CO2 emissions, the overall effect on the environment is so minuscule compared to other factors to make it barely noticeable. The number one thing that lets out "green house gases" is the ocean, what with it's millions of plants (seaweed) in the ocean and countless underwater volcanoes emitting gases non-stop, 24/7.</p>
<p>Opinion time. I hate how the U.S. is always the scape goat. China contributes so much more pollution than us, but do they get chastised as much as us? Hell no.
</p>
<p>I do believe that the global climate is changing, however I have yet to decide whether it has been caused directly or indirectly by humans. However, one thing I do know is that if you can't inhale exhaust or the like without coughing, it probably isn't good for the environment.</p>
<p>But, on the contrary, I heard recently that the government is contemplating taxing farmers with cows because of the methane released when the cows fart. That is laughably preposterous to me.</p>
<p>Haha, Arsenal, I like how you cite graphs used for the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.</p>
<p>Open</a> Letter To Kansas School Board - Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster</p>
<p>Either it is happening, we take action, and nothing happens.
or it is isn't happening, we take action, nothing happens.</p>
<p>So why not work on reducing emissions, etc.?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>fixed that for you.</p>
<p>Can I just put this to rest? The fact that the earth's average global temperature is rising (aka global warming) is beyond contestation: all you need to do is look at a graph of yearly temperatures. What the debate is about is whether or not humans are directly contributing to this warming, which is still debatable. People who believe that the debate is over whether the earth is warming in general either don't get it or are just getting their news blindly from conservative think-stations. </p>
<p>Here are the facts: it is true that aerosol spray cans, burning of fossil fuels, etc etc release greenhouse gases which can increase the earth's average temperature (by how much is not known). Also it is noticed that the Carbon Cycle, which normally regulates green house gases in the atmosphere, has measurably slowed (for lack of a better word). </p>
<p>More facts: The Earth is constantly going thru periods of warm and cool climates. We are actually exiting a period of overall low temperature. Al Gore likes to use a model saying that earth's green house gas density is the highest in 400,000 years. Now that is seemingly a vast time period, but knowing that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, that is only a time span of .009% of earth's lifetime, not a good sample section, it is nearly impossible (now) to estimate the measurements before this time. Similarly, there really isn't anything that humans can do that would "stop" global warming. The far left think that by stopping all CO emissions we will quickly correct the problem...that's just not possible. </p>
<p>My opinion? I think humans are definitely contributing to green house gases and thereby overall warming of the planet, but it's not like there is really anything we can do to reverse the problem. Unfortunately the polar ice caps will most certainly melt, we will lose species such as polar bears, etc. But that is the natural cycle of earth and it's inhabitants. At the same time I think it is extremely naive to think that we play no part in this, whether you think there actually is no warming (laughable!) or that we are influencing it. </p>
<p>Like all things, the middle road is usually the most accurate: the far right think we play no part, the far left believe that we are 100% responsible and could reverse it if acted upon now. I hope I've cleared some things up. I'm an astrophysics major at Berkeley...if that helps.</p>
<p>People want to feel comfortable. How would you live with the idea of 'it is warming anyway, ice age happened w/out us, so yes, we are likely to do burn badly in the nearest future'? Volcanoes emiss much more of the 'stuff' that people do, yet no one stops them. The 'stuff' reaches ozone layer in like 40 years...</p>
<p>Because people are driven by petty personal grudges, and conservatives simply don't want to acquiesce any political territory to liberals (and vice versa). There's no real right-wing rationale (unless you believe that industries should be able to pollute as much as they want in the name of profits) to opposing reducing pollution, other than the fact that the left-wing supports it.</p>
<p>Well said smallz. My atmosci professor at UCLA said basically the same thing - he came right out and said that the global warming crowd (by that I mean the group that follow Al Gore as the messiah and believe that humanity is fully responsible for global weather patterns) is on crack. </p>
<p>I'm a big proponent of renewable energy, not because of global warming, but because we're completely screwing ourselves in other ways if we don't. Too much of the global economy is based on oil, a finite resource based in a very unstable part of the world. And now that we've picked all the low-haning fruit (the massive oil fields in the middle east), oil will become much more difficult (and expensive) to get at (i.e. oil sands, smaller oil fields, etc.). And with large developing economies like China and India whose demand for oil (energy) is bound to increase exponentially over time, the world economy (and society for that matter) will be screwed more than it is now with the banking crisis.</p>
<p>Yes, the shift from an oil-based infrastructure to one based on hydrogen fuel-cells (the most likely contender, IMO) or another system will be expensive as all get-out, but necessary. Personally, I think we need to invest in a hell of a lot more nuclear power plants for national electricity needs. It is a proven safe technology, and is completely emission-free.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Can I just put this to rest? The fact that the earth's average global temperature is rising (aka global warming) is beyond contestation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not so fast on the incontestable. Global temperatures have been stable since 1998, and in the last year have become cooler, despite a 4% rise in C02. The past global warming models do not correctly predict the moderate temperatures we are now experiencing. It is easy to detect a shift in world opinion away from global warming, despite the more desperate efforts of the alarmists to keep people believing.</p>
<p>
[quote]
[quote]
Either it is happening, we take action, waste billions to trillions of dollars, and nothing happens.
or it isn't happening, we take action, waste billions to trillions of dollars, nothing happens.
[/quote]
fixed that for you.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And a cleaner environment is worthless to you?
(Also, how is is wasting if we prevent it?)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Either it is happening, we take action, and nothing happens.
or it is isn't happening, we take action, nothing happens.
[quote]
Either it is happening, we take action, waste billions to trillions of dollars, and nothing happens.
or it isn't happening, we take action, waste billions to trillions of dollars, nothing happens.
[quote]
fixed that for you.
[quote]
And a cleaner environment is worthless to you?
(Also, how is is wasting if we prevent it?)
[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm all for recycling and not dumping sludge into rivers etc. but the idea of carbon credits and the like is complete bull ****.</p>
<p>and you're the one who put "nothing happens" at the end of BOTH of them.</p>
<p>Agreed, Smallz3141, that seems the most reasonable explanation. </p>
<p>I think we should pursue renewable measures not just because there is some effect on our actions (I can't imagine burning 20.68 million barrels of oil a day in the US alone doesn't impact the earth at least a tiny little bit...), but also because it would probably improve the quality of life in our cities (air pollution/smog obviously exists!!!) and would be the smartest thing to do in a time of constrained resources.</p>
<p>I'm also pretty sure that most Americans had heard of Global Warming before Al Gore's movie/research. The idea of Global Warming started WAY before 2006. On top of that, the last time I checked they weren't just handing out Nobel Peace Prizes to just anybody. You cannot discredit all of the research he did because it is obviously (somewhat) sufficient if he won a Nobel Prize.</p>