Do you think that deep down, global warming deniers know they're wrong?

Yes, when I used to deny global warming I really deep down knew somthing was happening I just did not want to admit it.

Read this book. You sound like you work at a university or something, its probably in there. Same guy who wrote Emotional Intelligence.

____

Looking at some of the answers and remembering a comment that I heard recently that Americans have the most climate change deniers - I can't help but wonder if there are some individuals influencing the American media campaigns. Those individuals may have the level of influence over the general population to result in people being able to say 'sensible normal people think that global warming is a crazy hippie left wing, fear mongering load of carp". Yes, that's right... the fish.

lol

Careful, as when you confront the beliefs of the ignorant, the first reaction is violent denial.

To have to accept that everything you believed is wrong is a convulsive experience. Actually, it can be a crushing burden and destroy a person. This is where the resistance to change comes from.

I personally went through a long period of depression when I realized that things are much worse than popularly believed.

It’s like walking along close to a cliff. You know its there but you don’t dare go over and look. Most people spend their entire lives keeping distracted with other concerns. Some have the strength to venture over and look into the abyss. If you have not quite enough strength, you may despair and leap. You may have the strength to move back and return to your distraction. Those that I admire most return and dedicate their lives to a purpose.

Seriously, you have absolutely no idea how strong the wall in the mind can be made. A seriously psychotic and delusional person will commit suicide, commit all of us to destruction, rather than cross that rubicon.

This, my friend, is the great challenge of our age.

To many of us the question of global warming is linked with several other issues. We can see that man is having an impact on the planet and that we have created problems. We can observe the fact that plant and animal life is effected adversely by greenhouse gasses. We observe that many of our friends and relations suffer from chronic illness related to the toxins created by man. We are also aware of our continuous dependence on fossil fuels despite the impact on our health, economy and general well being.

You bring up an interesting point - are some people aware of the problems but continue to behave irresponsibly? I am quite certain this is happening because I see few people recycling, few of us use public transportation regularly and few people are willing to invest in any lifestyle changes at all which offer no promise of immediate gratification. We are what we are - often selfish, foolish, uncooperative and in denial. I am at a complete loss as to what to do about it. I can only influence a tiny group of people in my own environment and hope for the best.

The word, "facts", mean different things to different people. Just follow the presidential debates. Here are people who are fighting for the highest job in the U.S. and the "facts" they spout depend on their position. We've just discovered that the "fact" that global warming causes more hurricanes was wrong. What other "facts" are wrong.

There are probably as many scientists who question the "facts" of global warming as there are who accept them. Everyone agrees that global warming happens and may be happening now, the question is why? It is a fact that the climate changes without any input from mankind. We've had many warming cycles in the last five billion years. Is it a fact that humans can do anything to contribute to it? No one really knows for certain. If you factor in water vapor, humans contribute only .28% of greenhouse gases. Is that a fact? Is water vapor a greenhouse gas? How much greenhouse gases are released in a forest fire? A hurricane? the 60 or so active volcanoes? Cattle? Is it a fact that farm animals contribute more greenhouse gases than all the cars on earth? It is a "fact" that humans each fart 1/2 of a gallon of gas every day. That amounts to 3 billion gallons of methane gas a day. So, what do we do?

There is an old saying, "Follow the Money". Theories of global warming have been around since the 1800s. Why is there such a big push now? What did Al Gore get out of global warming? How many scientists are receiving government grants to study global warming who wouldn't receive a dime if they believed the opposite? When is Michael Moore going to come out with his own "documentary" on global warming? How much more power will the government grab by stating the human role in global warming? How much of our lives will be co-opted by new laws? Follow the money and follow the power.

Global warming deniers don't deny global warming. They are simply questioning the "facts". Seems like a healthy thing to do.

You seem to be operating on the potentially flawed assumption that people care if they're rigth or wrong on the topic.

This may explain some of the behavior here:

"A lot of us live in intellectual silos, it seems. A sobering survey of more than 1,700 voters, published by the Pew Research Center for the Public and the Press in January, found that more education, for example, does not shift attitudes, and instead actually hardens them.

In the survey, Republicans with a college degree were substantially more skeptical about global warming than Republicans without one. Democrats with a college degree were significantly more convinced global warming was a problem than were Democrats who didn’t go to college. "

Self interest may also be a factor:

"Republicans with higher levels of income (and education) would be disproportionately concerned about the economic implications of any proposed global warming solution (e.g. a carbon tax) because they have more to lose from slower economic growth than less wealthy Republicans — and thus would view the entire issue much more skeptically. On the other hand, Democrats with less wealth (and education) are less likely to care one way or the other about the issue because they’re more concerned about simply making ends meet. Wealthier Democrats (”limousine liberals”) have the luxury of being able to care passionately about solving the problem, whether or not it slows economic growth rates by a fraction."

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/clima...

I started out in the skeptical educated Republican category but I also value my intelligence, so when I bothered to look into the science and the overwhelming credible evidence pointed to both warming and our influence, I had to revisit my beliefs. It bothers the heck out of me that Bush reneged on his campaign promise to do something about global warming. Then there's the issue of going completely off the deep end towards curtailing our rights (I'll probably get tortured for writing that). I now distrust all of the Republican candidates' supposed plans to act on global warming.

Dana,

You're a scientist. So'm I, but I have advanced degrees in religious studies, because I never understood people who were 'irrational'.

SOOOO,

Check out the Book of Genesis, any version. People who believe, and there are a LOT of them, believe that their 'G-d/God/Allah' GAVE the Earth, the animals, and the plants, to Adam (not to Eve... -- version dependant) to do with, as he chose. Then Adam and Eve were told to 'go forth and multiply'. There are still a LOT of people for whom that is a literal ORDER from their Deity.

I don't have a Bible handy (hate that), but no doubt, some deranged nay-sayer can quote you chapter and verse from the Christian Scripture (AKA 'New Testament')... it's in one -- or more? -- of the Gospels, when Jesus tells his followers that they do not need to keep kosher, or follow all the rules of How to Be Jewish (the Torah... first 5 Books of the Hebrew Bible -- AKA 'Old Testament'). They're picking corn on the Sabbath or something, if I'm not mistaken.

Jesus goes on to re-inforce the idea that the world is here FOR human beings to use, populate, and do with as they will.

Even the 'Lilies' parable, which is not all bad, can be understood as Humanity being Uber-Important.

'Consider the lilies of the field,

they toil not, neither do they spin...

Consider the birds of the air...

[blah blah]

If G-d sees fit to bless them,

how much more blesséd art thou' -paraphrased from KJV

I really like the response about changing world-view. This is sort of an adjunct... because the world-view, in the Judeo/Christian/Muslim world is informed by 'well, our Deity gave us this world and everything in it, to do with, as we wanted, and said we were more important'...

Flashback to Genesis, (this is Bad Theology, but it is the USUAL interpretation): G-d/God/Allah created Adam (or humans- depends on the verse and the Book) in G-d/God/Allah's image, meaning MEN (historically) have had free rein to play Deity, over the Earth.

Of course, the religions of the Book, and monotheism, are relatively new, along with patriarchy. Judaism does not have a mandate for making converts, but both Christianity and Islam DO. So they spread as far and as wide as they could, as fast as possible.

Much later, but still a long time ago, a variant of Protestantism which was twisted into what is now called 'Prosperity Theology' arrived in the USA. I'll cut and paste it, on my blog.

Sorry, this was written very fast. My facts are correct, though I don't have sources to hand.

I think some of them honestly believe that mother nature will fix itself. There was a special on the hisotry channel called "Life After People" that gave possible outcomes if people suddenly vanished. Needless to say, nature took over very rapidly, but only with the total absence of humans. Some say that mother nature always wins, but really, she only wins when we lose.... horribly.

Ask any college biology professor and they'll tell you that global warming is 100% REAL. Gee, why would people who do extensive research on the environment lie about their scientific findings? For sh*ts and giggles?

Are you guys ever going to get tired of this "is too/is not" game? What difference does it make one way or the other anyway? Either way there are a lot of things that can and should be fixed.

As a vocal skeptic on the topic of anthropogenic global warming, I have another theory. Skeptics, deep down, are quite certain that proponents are wrong. Proponents, however, deep down, fear that they are.

If you ask a toddler what 10 divided by 5 is and he cannot answer, it does not mean that a six year old's answer of 12 is correct.