Why dont the general public believe in climate change?

I got to give Moe and CO2 expeller kudos on there answers. They nailed them. I couldn't add much to their answers!!

I would say that I am a scientist whose job isn't about studying global warming. I am a geologist and as such I have knowledge of natural climate change far in excess of anything that humans might cause. It is the norm in the last couple million years. I frankly am suspicious of those who study climate whose jobs depend on it, whose funds depend on their shrill claims. The funding actually weeds out the skeptical voices. If you actually take the time to read the emails from climate gate(s), it reveals a cabal of scientists who collude on how to restrict skepticism, use outdated data series, etc etc.

You think these people are so smart. They used trees that were injured or damaged called strip bark trees. These trees compensated for the damage by increased growth on the other side. The bozo who did the search looked for these kinds of trees because he thought it would be better representative of the climate and reduce CO2 fertilization (one of their theories). The incompetence of some of these people is breathtaking but after discovering that the series were useless and bogus, they still used them. Mann's 1998 climate reconstruction depended on this sort of thing, as well as questionable centring of data which selected for hockey sticks. His future reconstructions (I think inventions would be closer to the truth) were little better. It was all about getting rid of the medieval warming period and Little Ice Age. Those climate scientists who were incompetent or dishonest enough to come up with a way to rid the record of those inconvenient data was rewarded with funding, power, and fame. You can trust them if you want. I will trust in the science I learned as well as my common sense.

The public does believe In changing climate,It just can't open It's own eye's to the fact that the pole's are melting and we are In a masiive change since we can't catch up with the true goal's so get yo fact's straight.

You need to read a little more deeply. Dr. Muller was *never* a skeptic...he always accepted anthropogenic climate change; he just did not accept that the Hockey Stick graph created by Mann et al was valid (it wasn't...it was terrible science).

Why do most people not accept the AGW hypothesis? Because the AGW crowd blew their credibility. You told us that 'the science is settled'; it's not. You told us that 'virtually all' scientist accept the AGW hypothesis; but 31,000+ have signed the Oregon Petition; the 2010 study that 'found' that 97% agreed was so hopelessly rigged it was laughable; so also was Oserkes 2004 meta-analysis of published research. Then there is the continuing stream of ad hominem attacks on anyone who questions the AGW position; the climate scientists hiding the data, refusing to release it (Jones et al). Then there was the matter that the IPCC's climate models turned out to have *no* predictive validity. The correlation between CO2 and temperature is just barely statistically significant, and weaker than that for solar radiance, or the PDO.

Then you had one of the top guys at the IPCC telling us that it was 'immoral...even to question...' the findings of the IPCC. Are you nuts?

And all those statements that the science was 'incontrovertible'? *Nothing* in science is incontrovertible.

"A scientist is never certain" --Dr. Richard Feynman

"The important thing is to never stop questioning" --Dr. Albert Einstein

And, in the words of Dr. Hal Lewis, Professor Emeritus of Physics, UC Santa Barbara, who resigned from the American Physical Society because they refused to come of their stance that the AGW thing was 'incontrobertible', as stated in his letter of resignation:

"[Anthropogenic global warming is] ...the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life.”

Bad grammar is for deniers. Spell/grammar check your question next time before posting.

Most of the general public is relatively uninformed and somewhat confused about human-caused global climate change, and the issue is a complicated one. Even scientists weren't really sure about it until about 20 years ago, and that was after a great deal of research. 20 years ago is also roughly when the fossil fuel industry funded campaign of lies, confusion, and disinformation really got going. Now the kooks and con artists are running the anti-science denial movement, and some of their more junior dupe trainees practice their illiteracy on Yahoo Answers Global Warming.

http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200602/bac...

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

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

http://www.newsweek.com/2007/08/13/the-truth-about...

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/on...

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

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/climate-...

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

Hi Joe, your last statement amazed me. You say you know that all those scientists whose job it is to study it all agree with AGW. How do you know that? I suspect it is because you read it in the news paper or heard it on the news. Don't believe it, a lot of them have objected to this claim. The ones that go along with it rely on it for their livelihood. As for sceptic's, If you are not sceptical you are practising religion not science, scepticism is the essence of science.

They may even have read the bible. Mathew 24 says the time of the end will be wars rumour of wars and earthquakes in diverse places. No mention of global warming, not even a hint. If it was going to happen we would have been told. Have faith.

From my understanding, the debate is more focused on what caused climate change. It seems that one side says that it is cyclical in nature, while the other side believes that man caused it.

I'm sure the media didn't help, because a lot of people are heavily skeptical of the media to begin with.

Reasons why global warming is caused by humans?

Moslty it is because the warmers are a bunch of idiots in how they have presented the information. To claim that man has had an effect on the climate and will continue to, is patently obvious. The amount is not obvious. This garbage about future exponential increases have shown foolish. There have been idiot warmers claiming the New York will be underwater. The problem and what makes them idiots, is that they made this claim in the past, talking about TODAY. That is right, warmer "scientists" did what no scientist should ever do and made a very definitive (ie no confidence intervals) and incorrect prediction. There models have all been overestimating. The last 15 years have shown a lower increase in temps than the previous 40, hardly a sign of exponential increase. Further they have made stupid statement about polar bears dying (when they have increased 5-fold), 15 million global warming refugees (when there have been none) and a ton of other false claims all in the name of scaring the masses.

As if this is not bad enough, the "green solution" is a poorly disguised tax (Cap and Trade) during a recession. This tax scheme would have little effect, when much simpler and better solutions exist that do not tax us during a recession.

So while you are correct, the scare-mongering and assinine claims made have turned off the US public. My advice, stick to facts, not scare-mongering BS and work on reasonable solutions, not asking big brother govt to tax us more.

Also as for your "most scientists", you are likely referring to the "climate scientist" "consensus". Given that the fear of AGW has increased their budgets from the millions to the billions, how likely do you think they are to say, there is no problem, you can stop paying us now? Beyond that, the consensus was so general (only saying that man has had an effect, not the amount of the effect) such that I agree with the consensus, but still disagree with the scare-mongers and mostly considered a skeptic or more defammatory "denier".

Frankly,I wonder sometimes.

The general public is more concerned about their day to day survival to worry about anything as universal as Global Warming. They are also occupied with the acquisition of new duds and new toys and new cars etc.

Global warming is a fact, whether you think it is natural or man made. Truth is it is both!

The planet does go through stages of climate change on a natural basis. These changes have been shown to be mostly cyclical in nature however; varying up and down, rather than a change in one single direction.

It is also a fact that the CO2 emissions we generate add to global warming, and will have significantly more impact, as India and China. in particular, continue to build homes, use more electricity, drive more cars and become more like the US.

I believe if they haven't already, China will quickly become the number one CO2 emitter, with the US close behind and India slowly vying for the number two position.

The same thinking which didn't believe that CFCs were thinning and creating holes in the ozone , didn't think the rain forests were disappearing, is the same type of thinking which also denies Global Warming.

Even the Bank of America is committed to spending millions of dollars worldwide to reduce their own CO2 emissions.Although I am sure they believe this will be good for their image, it is costing them a lot of money instead of making them money. of course they will save money over the long haul, which I am sure is attractive to their bottom line. Countrywide and Merrill Lynch have both followed suit.

These are not humanitarian organizations. These are for profit corporations, taking an interest in the environment at their own expense. it may take 70-100 years before it will be too late to counter act our CO2 sins of today, but within the next 10-15 years I believe that the skeptics now will quickly cross over to "Chicken Little's" side of the fence.

Elvis is alive, the world is flat and there is no global warming Do you see a pattern here?

There are a few reasons:

1) There is a huge vested monitary interest in the fossil fuel industry, so they will fight any change, and use the media to gain public support.

2) To accept Global Climate Change means to accept personal responsibility, and that means a lifestyle change at some point. People really don't like being forced to go against their daily lives (especially when they do have a lot of pressing issues to deal with immediately).

3) Since science is still trying to figure out the extent of the damage and whether any mitigative efforts will be sufficient and/or feasible, people feel afraid to waste time, money, and energy on a potential fruitless endeavor.

4) The "green" movement has already been largely co-opted by corporate America so they can make sure any changes that come from it are still in the interests of large corporations. This is a double-edged sword. On the one hand it does help to legitimatize the movement to the general layman and creates some responsibility on the corporate end to helping the issue, on the other hand it creates some distrust as these companies are profiteering (mainly by up-charging and publicizing non-helpful activities as "green") as well as allowing them to only mitigate on their terms, which are often far from optimal.

I can't speak for everyone else, but I can tell you why I don't believe in human caused climate change.

The simple truth is that CO^2 has an extremely poor insulation factor and there is no where near enough of a change in CO^2 levels to account for the median rise in temperature since the industrial revolution began. CO^2, also, doesn't capture and return anywhere near enough infra red energy either to account for the heat rise either.

Given that there a myriad of other factors to account for the rise in global temperatures, and the fact that these changes have be happening for millions of years, the likelihood that our current state of climate change is human caused is highly unlikely.

The majority of "scientists" that adhere to human caused climate change only point out circumstantial evidence and NEVER address the math involved with their initial premise. Which makes them suspect for doubt. Especially when many of these "scientists" are the benefactor of billions of dollars in research funds for their beliefs.

I never see the math in any article or paper from any proponent of human caused climate change. However, I have read several posted sites that include the math and they all dispute the assertion of human caused climate change. Here is an example of one I found years ago: http://www.john-daly.com/barker/index.htm

Soon, the truth will come out and people, like yourself, will begin to understand the scam that has been pulled on you. This whole thing reminds me of the Catholic Church and the time when you could buy dispensation for your sins. This allowed leaders of the church to live a luxurious life while they contemplated howmanhy angels could dance on the head of a pin.