Why are there people so insistant that global warming is a lie when they have no scientific background?

I have asked myself this same question so many times. For some reason your average joe who has essentially zero science education thinks that by listening to Fox News or reading junkscience.com, he's more of an expert on climate science than climate scientists. It never ceases to amaze me. I mean, you don't hear about people performing surgery on themselves very often. In most cases people defer to the experts. But when it comes to global warming, everyone thinks they know it all.

What really amazes me is when people say "the climate has changed naturally in the past" and think they've made some mind-blowing statement that disproves man-made global warming. Like climate scientsts don't realize that the climate has changed in the past. No duh, people!

Really what it boils down to is politics and psychology. Some people just *need* man-made global warming to be wrong. They don't want to change their behavior (i.e. driving gas-guzzling SUVs), and they're scared to death that the issue will result in increased government regulation and some sort of carbon tax. The scientific experts are the ones saying global warming is a huge problem, so their only option is to either come up with a conspiracy theory (i.e. all climate scientists are in on a massive hoax to make Al Gore rich) or come up with some lame attempt to disprove the theory.

I desire individuals have been extra cautious approximately how they phrased their questions. I'm going to learn your query as: Anthropogenic Global Warming. Since a fundamental worldwide warming fashion did arise when we got here out of the mini ice age. The most effective matters that scientists that suppose the warming fashion used to be brought on by way of human undertaking is growing CO2 phases within the surroundings and that their laptop items are programed to exhibit that the growing CO2 is inflicting the warming. The fascinating factor that we're residing via now's plenty of proof is being amassed to turn out that conception mistaken. Like CO2 phases are nonetheless growing and now we have first flat-coated and at the moment are displaying cooling over the final couple of years which their compute items did not are expecting. Both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans are opening to chill off. And the knowledge greatest factor that might sink us into a further mini ice age is that if we're heading into a further sun minimal (low to no sunspot undertaking) and the final time this occurred used to be throughout the mini ice age.

We listen to the experts on both sides and find the skeptics more credible. We also find your main argument that global warming is a fact based on a consensus view, not science, very weak and old. Where is the proof of a consensus? Only Orekes study, but that is seriously flawed study, and no one can replicate her work.

We also find the other tactic used by the doomsayers suspicious. If I say, what is wrong with a paper written by this person, the typical answer is, "you can trust him, he is in the pockets of big oil"

Most challenges to a debate go unmet. The evidence is so overwhelming, yet the doomsayers are afraid of a debate. Do you have anything to hide.

Why should I believe you are an Earth Science major? Actually I don't believe you are a science major of any kind. I feel your just saying that to make yourself sound more important than you really are. Also, you have no idea how much any one of us knows about the planet we live on, so you shouldn't cut anyone down. One other thing, I've discovered from my time on Yahoo Answers is there are a lot of intelligent people on this board no matter what they believe when it come to the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory.

And if you have an open mind you can learn something from either camp. Like in military strategy it's good to know your opponent.

It is not so much that people deny global warming is occuring, I agree that it is.

The point is whether humans are having an effect on it, and the answer to that is probably no.

As a scientist you should know that much research that is done, especially computer modelling, is much like creative accounting, giving people who ask the questions the answers they are looking for.

Have you, in your studies and research ever looked at the effect of the hundreds and maybe thousands of undersea vulcanoes around the Pacific rim and in the mid atlantic that are like Yellowstone, only they are continually pouring hot water and magma into the oceans and heating them. Also where the tectonic plates meet are similar vulcanoes, or maybe you could call them guysers continually erupting magma from between the plates.

My proposition is that that is the major cause of the warming of the oceans, and the melting of the ice caps. As vulcanic activity is not consistent, my hypothesis could explain the El nino and La Nina effects. Try doing your doctorate on that when you complete your BS. You may finish up with a Nobel prize.

What I hate about the sides in this issue is that neither of them care a lot about the actual effects of global warming, or doing anything about them they just want to be (considered) right.Never mind that even a layman like myself has observed the cyclical and non-Armageddon nature of the phenomenon, as long as you all can keep the masses scared and divided, the money will keep pouring in.

If Earths climate has been understood for years, then why was it not predicted that earth would cool substantially over the last 18 months? Because no one understands Earths climate, I do have a science background, and I can tell you that computing power, software and the data available are insufficient to model and predict climate decades into the future.

I don't know anybody who doubts that climate change occurs, sometimes warming, sometimes cooling. What I find very dubious, based on scientific evidence, is the assumption that human activity has a significant impact on it. You and I both know that there is nothing even close to scientific proof of anthropogenic global warming.

I admire and share your respect for science. If you think you've got what it takes, try the Ultimate Global Warming Challenge. The prize is now $500K. Not too shabby, eh?

I've wondered the same thing myself. I think it's because it's what their version of the media tells them. My mom started arguing with me about global warming, and she not only knows nothing about it, she knows nothing about science in general. One clue: she watches Fox News constantly. I reminded her that "I am your son and I am getting a doctorate in Climate Science." I don't mind educated discussions of the science, but when people who don't know science start saying that scientists are bunch of pinkos trying to perpetrate a giant hoax to advance their own social goals it infuriates me. That is just slander and they have no basis whatsoever for making statements like that.

I agree with Simplify and...

It has less to do with science than psychology, specifically:

Fear

Irresponsibility

Ignorance

Intelligence

Selfishness

Ego

Education is the key but, as any educator knows, of the three things you can teach - knowledge, skills and attitudes - attitudes are the hardest to change and take the most time and patience.

This issue has little to do with knowledge or skills... patience, patience!