Why do global warming believers get offended when I tell them that I think man-made climate change is a hoax?

I'm not offended. Nor do I feel any need to insult you. But there's a mountain of proof that you're wrong. And your source is more than a little extreme in his beliefs.

This is science and what counts is the data, not people's intuition.

"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”

Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)

Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut

Here are two summaries of the mountain of peer reviewed data that convinced Admiral Truly and the vast majority of the scientific community, short and long.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate...

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

summarized at:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/a...

There's a lot less controversy about this is the real world than there is on Yahoo answers:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/ho...

And vastly less controversy in the scientific community than you might guess from the few skeptics talked about here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on...

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/570...

EVERY major scientific organization has issued an official statement that this is real, and mostly caused by us. The National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Association, etc.

Against all that you have Gary: "Conservative news and opinion, mostly opinion." Gary is the kind of Conservative these guys think makes Conservatives look bad, by denying scientific fact:

"Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

"National Review (the most prestigious conservative magazine) published a cover story calling on conservatives to shake off denial and get into the climate policy debate"

Another of Gary's causes:

"Television, Computers, MP3 Players, Video Games, Cell Phones, the Breakdown of Morals, and the End of Our Society"

Yeah, I'm going to listen to him, instead of all the scientists.

I'm Canadian. We live the reality of man made global warming on a daily goddamn basis.

When some dumbsh*t foreigner makes claims to the contrary, it's like some idiot living in a desert pretending rain, rivers, lakes, and oceans aren't real.

Since the simple solution is to get off their lazy @sses and go see such things for themselves, (because seeing is believing) I always tell them to come on up to Canada and do precisely that.

Thus far, not a single one ever has. So I mock their personal and intellectual cowardice in denying something that's real and happening which they could experience for themselves if only they had the mental and moral backbone to put their beliefs to the test.

I have experienced the same situation.

Seems like some people feel personally attacked or that their intelligence is being insulted by a person with a different opinion.

I believe I am capable to accept different opinions without necessarily agreeing with them (about everything not just in this matter).

The irony of this lays on the fact that some of them speak of consuming less, saving resources, energy, etc.... but GETTING ANGRY AND REACTING IRRATIONALLY is a waste of energy.

Frustration is understandable but certain reactions go beyond that. It looks like weakness or insecurity.

CLARIFICATION

=============

Dana1981: even though we don't share the same opinion, I should say I agree with you that the word HOAX is indeed offensive in the scientific field.

Personally I'm not fond of that word and I've never used it before. There are other "more civilized" terms to express certain opinions.

When a person holds firm beliefs to be true, and absoultly accepts the evidence for those beliefs, while a majority of the social population is also supporting those beliefs, the ego swells and doesn't accept a counter viewpoint, no matter how well informed that counter viewpoint is. "They" take the "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude no matter what and will not even consider any evidence to the contary despite that evidence's validity. For example, NASA studies of average temperature on plantes has revealed that the average temperature on Mars is raising at a faster rate than that of Earth. Similar NASA data has alos indicated a slower, yet steady temperature increase in Jupiter and Saturn. There is only one common factor affecting all of these, which is the Sun. The sun accounts for 100% of our planets heat. If the sun is getting hotter, then it is reasonable to assume that the Earth (and all other planets) would also get hotter as well. If I could find data on the rest of the planets, I'm sure I would see the same trend as to Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.

What people might consider offensive is your use of the term 'hoax'. A hoax is when a person is intentionally trying to deceive you. So basically what you're saying is that tens of thousands of climate scientists are all in on a giant conspiracy to falsify data to trick us all into thinking that we're causing the planet to warm.

As a scientist, I think it's offensive you would accuse other scientists of perpetrating a hoax. But more than that, it's simply impossible. See Myth #6: http://greenhome.huddler.com/wiki/global-warming-m...

Now if you want to say you're not convinced by the scientific data, that's fine. But don't call it a hoax. That's just wrong.

I think that the information age is finally catching up with the global warming people. Before the internet was popular, they had the run of the mill.

Now, that information is readily available with just a click of a key or a mouse, there monopoly is over. You can find the facts with a basic search engine, for both sides of the argument. Which is probably why people who are pushing global warming are getting mad. They are getting their clocks cleaned.

For example, it's like telling a scientist that a plant don't need sun light or a source of light to live. The perception of global warming is that easy if you have the insight and understanding of how the ecological system works. Yes, you are entitled to your opinion to say that a plant don't need sunlight or a source of light to live or even call the concept a hoax. Well of course that will offend a lot of experts and people who knows this to be a fact.

A little insight for you. Trees, Water, and plants is needed to keep our ozone layer.

Is the destruction of trees and plants and the contamination or over usage of water caused by man?

However you answer that last question is the answer to if global warming is true or not.

Last, *Human made* technology like cars and coal generating factories and other man made technology that release toxic gasses in the atmosphere has an effect on plants, trees and water because of the acid rain created *BY MAN*

The less trees and plants on this planet will cause catastrophic weather patterns and heating up on this planet.

Hope that helps

Yes, earths climate has always changed, but not for the same reasons and rarely so abruptly. Whats your point? Do you think that the fact that earths climate naturally fluctuates over thousands of years somehow makes it okay that the global temperature rises 2-5C in a 100 year period? It's okay then to have a mass extinction because mass extinctions have happened in the past and if we wait 200,000,000 more years, all kinds of cool stuff will evolve back again and everything will be okay? Is this your logic? Most of the deniers don't have any idea what they are talking about, which is why their gross disinterest in facts is offensive. Like other denialists, the stronger the evidence becomes against them, the more they disbelieve it.

Because they are only using "Climate Change" as a path to political power.---You THREATEN their dream.

AAAAAAA said

"well, for one thing, I can already tell you are not a scientist or engineer because of how you used the term "flux".

misusing terms in a scientific debate is a good way to get people angry at you."

This is very odd. He is using the term correctly, just not how you would like him to use it.

Bob said:

"Gary is the kind of Conservative these guys think makes Conservatives look bad, by denying scientific fact"

And you Bob, make proponents look bad by confusing a theory with a "scientific fact".

People will fight for beliefs; facts can speak for themselves.

Protestants and Catholics will argue forever, come to blows and even death to defend their positions. Because there are no compelling arguments either way, the battle rages on.

The GW theorists like to think there's proof, and the GW deniers can come up with a counterargument for every statement. Watch the battles from afar as entertainment, and refuse to get caught up in the squabble.