Why do conservatives deny the scientific consensus on global warming?

The link you provide includes the following:

"Why is climate changing?

Climate has changed throughout geological history, for many natural reasons such as changes in the sun’s energy received by Earth arising from slow orbital changes, or changes in the sun’s energy reaching Earth’s surface due to volcanic eruptions. In recent decades, humans have increasingly affected local, regional, and global climate by altering the flows of radiative energy and water through the Earth system (resulting in changes in temperature, winds, rainfall, etc.), which comprises the atmosphere, land surface, vegetation, ocean, land ice, and sea ice. Indeed, strong observational evidence and results from modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human activities are a major contributor to climate change."

And yet, even with that rather strong conclusion, these scientists, in this report, do *NOT* give any scientific estimates of the percentage of global warming caused by natural variation of the sun...no answer...*NONE*.

Yet they, and *YOU* conclude that man is a "major contributor." I say...prove it...scientifically. Your article does not do that.

Ummm what consensus. The National Organization for Climatologists came out with a statement signed by over 9,345 climatologists that states there is NO consensus since the data is NOT solid. Right now global warming is still classified as theory amongst scientists not fact. Real science embraces debate, not discourages it. Only those with a hidden agenda try to squelch debate and opposing views. Show me one scientist that can absolutely claim global warming is real and that will be the first one. Mars is undergoing a warming too, with the same conditions but you ignore that, how scientific can you really be? Piece of advise, stop reading blogs and go to another topic, this one is beyond your comprehension. Thanks for the easy 2 points.

The Truth is most people do not dispute the fact of global warming. I am no exception I am willing to admit these points as scientifically factual

1) The earth has indeed warmed since the start of the industrial age

2) That human habitation particularly in the modern era can affect local weather and ecosystems

these are the facts that 85-90% of us agree on both in and out of the scientific community

The disputes lie

1. In the Homogeneous nature of climate change on a global scale.

2. accepting that global warming is detrimental to the human population, in general, on a global scale.

3. Accepting that the measures put forth by parties like the UN in Kyoto accord will have any meaningful effect on global warming and that that effect outweighs the economic damage done by these measure -vs- the economic damage by global warming itself on a global scale.

My issue with the Global warming Scare crowd like Al Gore ( not so much with the scientific community) is that they are much like Chicken little. they run off making predictions and proposing measures without truly understanding the facts or the consequences. let me give an example of measures that have been rashly proposed based on preliminary scientific data without fully resurching the facts and outcome

A few yrs. ago in Europe the found that Coconut oil Was a perfect alternative fule sourceand many governments subsidized goversion to the use of Coconut oil from fossil fuels. these were the pertinent facts they based their decision on

1. Coconut oil is a renewable energy source

2. The carbon emissions emitted by burning coconut oil was neutral because the coconut groves planted to produce the oil acted as a natural carbon credit to the co2 emitted by burning this fuel

3. this new fuel source was priced independent of fossil fuels and the nations that control them

Sounds like "Everything is great in smallville" something you could get behind and support right! Carbon neutral, Renewable and cost less and with less market volatility than fossil fuels everyones a winner right? WRONG!

turns out the scientist forgot to factor in some details

True facts on this issue

1 Turns out Coconut oil is not carbon neutral when you factor in they had to slash and burn rain forest to plant coconut plantations. the smoke and and co2. emitted by the fires as well as the destruction of rain forest which are superior carbon sinks than coconut groves ans well as the globes air conditioners resulted in a rather significant net loss in carbon reduction.

2. Turns out that all fuels both fossil and renewable tend to move in sympathy on the global market and while there was some net gain in was no where near that projected by it's proponents

Now I ask you to accept these truths as facts

1> The consensus reached in the scientific community that you speak of is not as clear as you many Alarmist trumpet. What they did conclude in a consensus opinion is that the globe is warming and that the effects of industrialization likely have been a contributing factor in this warming. I personally am Comfortable with that as near fact. However, note they did not nor have they ever issued a consensus opinion that homogeonicity was the primary or even the prominent cause of this global warming.

2. The accuracy of any weather model beyond a few months is extremely variable and cannot be relied upon with any certitude especially on a global scale. Christ! we can't predict regional weather phenomena like El-Nino beyond a few months let alone global weather out 100 yrs

3. That taking the alarmist at their word and implementing the Kyoto accords in the U.S. will have a net saving of the world carbon emissions of about 1% when taking natural and man made output globally. Do a little research yourself you will find this is accurate! And the America is the worlds largest producer of industrial co2 output.

In conclusion. I am a rational man while I do not take the claims of global warming alarmist as an immutable fact. I do not discount the possibility that man can have a significant effect on global climate. I am not even opposed to taking measures to counter global warming if taken in prudent way taking into account the benefits vs the harm and as long as it is based on sound science not speculation or theory. I also ask the alarmist among you to consider the possibility that global warming whether it be natural or man made is already progressed to the degree that measures we take will have a negligible effect on the process and that half baked schemes and plans can actually have a negative effect on humanity *** a whole when measured against the small benefit they provide.

These are all things to ponder my friends for the ratinal thinking man or woman!

There's not a consensus - it's just easier to get scientific grants if you're willing to do a study on global warming or concede that global warming exists and poses a threat to the Earth.

It's called bullying. Would you rather jump on the global warming bandwagon or have your reputation ruined and never receive funding for your projects?

I'm not a conservative. I am a capitalist, though, and the first thing that turned me off to global warming was that it's anti-progress, anti-business, and anti-capitalism. After I started to research the subject, it became evident that global warming was like a religion to its adherents. I've never been much for religion or joinin', so naturally I was skeptical. Finally, I discovered how little science there was to actually prove global warming.

The best counterargument I've seen against global warming is a documentary made by the BBC. I am posting it in my source links for you to check out when you have time.

*Edit: The link I provided you is dead. I found a link to the documentary's website, though. You can watch a trailer and read the arguments.

well... apparently they think that the majority of scientists have a HUGE AGENDA to destroy America? when it comes down to it... the majority of conservatives seem to be HUGE conspiracy theorists when you ask them "why would someone do x?" like why would someone "make up global warming"... "make up the things the "liberal media" says".."push for welfare, social security, healthcare"

they start rambling about a communist conspiracy at the root of it...

but back to global warming... this is the scientist's best opinion based on the facts they have gathered...

you may not be able to prove it until it becomes much too late to do anything about the problem....

if you wake up in the middle of the night and smell smoke strongly in your house... do you go back to bed because you don't see or feel the flames of the fire and you can't prove there is a fire? or do you take percautions based on the evidence you have... even though it may not actually be a fire...

I mean... KISS could have just got done doing a very quiet concert in your back yard and the smoke was from that?

You posted all of these quotes from respected scientist, and even included all the links to their websites. And yet, these people are still in denial. I just don't understand these guys.

That one guy is trying to say that science is not about consensus, it's about facts.

Well, how about a consensus on the facts? All of these scientists, from a dozen different countries, all agree that global warming is happening and that it is caused by man! They aren't just agreeing on opinions, they are agreeing on facts.

For Pete's sake people, pull your heads out of your rear ends and start listening to the people that actually know what they are talking about!!

Consensus is not science its an opinion. I know you have been told this but ignore it because your agenda doesn't work on science it works on opinion.

You have done a great deal of research on the consensus of global warming now you need to do your complete homework and type in the search words: Global Warming Myth in the seach engine and gather some FACTS.

To the white trash: Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are not scientists. Their ignorant notions and social conjectures are not needed to make a consensus among REAL scientists who can actually support their claims.

ok...we have global warming...what do you want to do,realistically,to fix it?...that defines as something that wont bankrupt a hundred countries economies and therefore is likely to happen?...c'mon...give me a fix that everybody will be on board with..that wil do something about Global Warming and do it soon enough to do some good and wont cost us everything we have ever built.....we will have to find alternate energy sources for coal,that costs the same,for gasoline,that costs the same.and a 1000 other things,that cost the same..or you wont get enough countries on board....until you can do that,and give us a solution for it that everybody concerned will follow...shut up about it...it aint gonna happen

And why won't you answer the following question:

"Why did all of the ice ages melt, prior to the time of an industrialized society?"

The Myth of Global Warming is a distraction from our real problems and a threat to our national security. Why can't you liberals understand that (of course, you don't understand anything and you have a mental disorder, but don't know it)?