How many of the deniers base their conclusion on "common sense" or "think for themselfs"?
Instead of making an effort to try to understand at least the basic science behind global warming and the greenhouse effect.
I think it's scary that statements made by skeptics using their "common sense" are likely to become new truths among deniers.
I read in one answer today that "consensus among scientists is that CO2 doesn't cause global warming" In another answer there was a link that shows that skin cancer is decreasing as a argument against global warming and wonder how any "common sense" relates that to AGW? (Maybe this was related to the persistent misunderstanding about the ties between the ozone hole and global warming that makes people confuse these subjects when they think for themself.)
2008-04-09T07:22:43Z
Liss: Sorry and thanks for making me aware of my mistake. English is not my native language and I usually try to always use the spell checking. (I'm from Sweden but I should have known this anyway.)
2008-04-10T10:29:00Z
Ben: I do not deny the "little Ice age", nor do I care if the Medival Warm Period where as warm as today or not. My true concern is the future which are heading for much warmer times if we don't make a change soon.
"The only thing sceptics are generally not socialists who are predisposed to believing that the evil corporations are poisoning the Earth for their own selfish gain."
Still many of you are very fast in believing that all scientists and politicians in the world is part of a big conspiracy with their only purpose to tax people, or "take away the American way of life".
By the way: I don't believe in "evil corporations" but I do believe most companies are using the most profitable methods to make business. Without clear and fair rules, this currently causes the environment suffer.
d/dx+d/dy+d/dz2008-04-09T23:13:44Z
Favorite Answer
Some of the deniers are professionals and they use a recipie that works whether they are trying to sell 'natural remedies', cars that use water as a fuel, a gold mine in the Indonesian jungle with core samples salted with a ground up wedding ring, or doubt about global warming. The common ingredients in a scam are: 1. the proponent is an outcast rejected by the authorities in the field. 2. the authorities in the field are part of a conspiracy to supress the proponent to protect their vested interests. 3. an appeal to reject the conventional science and accept the proponent's version of science using 'common sense'. 'Think for yourself' in this context realy means to neglect the evidence and accept the proponent's version. 4. life will be easy if you believe the proponent. ie the "natural remedy" will make you healthy; the water car scam promises unlimited free fuel; the fake gold mine promises easy wealth; doubt about global warming absolves responsibility and gives license for business as usual.
The deniers are merely using well tested boiler plate marketing methods used by scam artists worldwide. Can you realy blame someone being paid to spread confusion for using the tools that work?
Those who make statements like that have probably had a bad experience with a situation involving divorce and child support. I take great issue with those who would consider telling a mother to go on food stamps, etc. and expecting that to be an acceptable situation for a child when a father, who is responsible for his children should be paying support. Many underestimate the 24/7 element of caring for children and look at things in a very shallow monetary perspective. However, on the other side of things, I married a great guy who has two kids from a previous marriage. His support payment is based on percentage and he pays over 10,000 a year in support. Between his ex and her current husband they make a substantial amount of money more than our household (and they can't count the spousal income, so the situation will remain the same) so the ex receives a lot of money she doesn't really need to support the kids. I would never say that she doesn't deserve it, but I'd love to know that some of it was going into a college account, like my hubby already does for both kids.
To answer your question - many AGW sceptics are intelligent, educated, knowledgable about science and scientific technique and that is the reason we are sceptics.
Being from Sweden, you should know that in the 14'th century the Swedish army marched accross the frozen Sea to invade Denmark. The evidence suggests that the earth climate changes quite significantly by itself. Those activists who claim that the Little Ice Age never happened are going against some compelling evidence.
The only thing sceptics are generally not socialists who are predisposed to believing that the evil corporations are poisoning the Earth for their own selfish gain.
You've hit the nail on the head - most 'skeptics' base their arguments on "common sense". For example, the argument "maybe global warming is caused by that big flaming ball of gas in the sky" is one we see often. It's common sense that since the planet receives most of its energy from the Sun, that the Sun could very well be causing global warming. Until you look at the data and find out that it's clearly not.
Another one is "climate has changed naturally in the past, therefore the current warming is natural". Again it seems logical, until you do a bit of research.
Another is "CO2 makes up such a small fraction of the atmosphere" or "humans emit such a small amount of CO2 relative to natural sources that it can't be causing global warming". Again, it seems to make sense, until you do a little bit of research.
In every case, these comments taken by themselves seem to make sense. Once you start to gather more information, they all fall apart.
As I discussed in the link below, "common sense" based on ignorance will lead you to the wrong conclusion every time.
"Anyone who denies global warming generally doesn't understand the science, because the consensus among scientists is that global warming is happening (I assure you, I'm not a layman, I'm a PhD climatology student)." by godhead
I do not have a PhD, but I do have a BA in History and I know how to do research. Anyone who believes that man is the cause of global warming is an arrogant prick. This is nothing more than a socialist agenda. It is a way to get you to give up the way you live your life. Let's all give up the way we live and return to a simpler time, like the 7th century. I don't think so! The great thing about man is his ability to adapt to change and think for himself. More of us need to start thinking and stop relying on government to guide us along the path of life.
Tuba in the Rose Parade, I never said I had a PhD in History. If man is the cause of global warming, please explain to me every climate change that has happened before mankind had their industrial revolution. And as for "arrogant pr**k" the individuals I work with who believe this (man made global warming)are, no matter what evidence you give them. As for the Star Wars Ep3 line, are you telling me that if you were in a position of political power that you wouldn't do whatever it took to stay in power. I am sure Communist China loves the idea of democracy. And, thank you, at least know I now people actual read what I post.