Why people don't believe in climate science

Post Reply New Topic

An important video about the psychology behind climate change denial:



This video shows the science behind climate change:

Anthropogenic Global Warming is a hoax made up by liberals so the government can control our daily lives.

Do you have any comments on one or both of the videos?

Some of us don't like videos and refuse to watch them.

I can't speak for everybody but for myself because of over reliance on computer modeling, the data is only from small slice of history, large scale climate change has occurred before we were throwing carbon into the atmosphere, but we are being asked to believe that this climate change is hugely effected by humans, I am autistic and I think differently then most. This winter computer model predictions changed often in the days before a winter storm, and widely differed from other computer models trying to predict the same event. I am being asked to unquestionably believe computer models long term predictions when they have difficulty predicting a few days ahead.

If I or anybody questions the climate change consensus we are assumed to be stupid people brainwashed by paid propaganda and called deniers. The comparison is often intended with Holocaust deniers an effective silencing technique.

Many "skeptics" want to do nothing which is just as wrong as making massive change based on a computer modeled theory. Stop building or fortify in coastal areas in areas with a proven history of hurricane strikes. The Dutch with their system of dikes know how to do this. Have USA scientists go over and figure out what they do right and we do wrong. How stupid are all these glass office buildings? The flying glass are going to kill a lot of people if a category 2 or above makes a direct hit in New York City or a F3 or above wide tornado goes through an office complex.

I welcome Global Warming.

The real disaster would be Global Cooling.

AsPartOfMe,

One of the points in the second video was that we can tell it was human activity by the change in the ratio of the isotopes of carbon dioxide. What naturally occurs in the atmosphere was CO2(isotope 13), but plants prefer CO2(isotope 12). The fossils that we see in the ground consequently tend to have CO2(12), which is different from the atmospheric CO2(13). Our factories emit CO2(12), which is different from what naturally occurs in the atmosphere: CO2(13). Therefore, if human activity is the cause, then the percentage of CO2(12) in the atmosphere should be rising. Its rising is what we see. That is a piece of evidence that supports human activity playing a major role in the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Of course, you would say, "You're just a sheeple!"

Uh, no. The rapid pace of warming would make it very difficult for many organisms to adapt. The ocean absorbs 90% of the heat and the changes in the ocean are rather extreme. For example, the increased CO2 causes oceans to acidify (i.e. it makes the pH of the oceans drop), and we find that lifeforms that depend on carbon casing break down a lot more under the decreased pH, because they are so sensitive to the pH.

Another thing we see in the oceans is that the water expands as it is heated and the heated water comes to cover many sheets of ice, causing the sheets to shrink. Those ice sheets are important for preventing heating as well, because their white color tends to cause the sunlight to reflect (causing a lower level of heating), but the darker ocean waters and land tend to absorb sunlight causing more of a heating effect. This creates a vicious cycle of heating. Also, the rising sea levels make many regions of earth less habitable and much more prone to flooding.

More reasons are given on both the first video and the second video.

Which proves humans are throwing CO2 into the atmosphere not that it is causing the warming that is melting artric ice or that it is causing an existential crises. There are more obvious causes of human caused warming then carbon such as the urban heat island effect. Which is what I was trying to say above deal with known proven effects, cities dramatically warm areas around them , many of them are built in areas with a history of hurricane and tornado strikes. And there are other pollutants and gases natural and human made besides CO2. Money is not going into these areas because of of the CO2 theory is so prominent

What's going on is that human activity (which includes both setting up carbon sources and removing carbon sinks) is causing the margin between carbon dioxide production and removal to greatly increase. This change at the margins causes CO2 to increase much more quickly.

Also, it is not any change in the sun that is causing this warming. During the last 30 years or so, during which we are seeing the greatest heating, solar activity has actually decreased.

A lot more can be found on the second video.

The urban heat island effect don't explain how the warming is more pronunced in Arctic and Antartic, where there is no city.

I think most do believe the climate is changing, they just dispute what it means, the impacts, what's causing it to change. They compare what is happening now to what happened in the past. They tend to mistrust the government.

Some people believe the climate is and has always changed and there were quick changes in the past, as in glaciers forming practically overnight.

People do not know what to make of the changes. They don't know how it will impact their lives, so they tend to rationalize it and act like it won't be a big deal, might even help them out, by making winters warmer, for example. Some people believe winters will be warmer because of climate change. Not saying it will be true but they believe it.

The most frequent argument they use against it is the climate has changed in the past without the help of humans, so it can now without out help.

Just like with CO2 jet stream moves the air from the cities to other locations. If the city is near water it is heating the air around the water, the warmed water will be carried by currents. Just recently it has been arctic ice has been noticed to be graying not unlike the black coated snow you see in urban areas when snow melts. That would seem to increase the quickness of melting as sun rays warms a darker surface faster. Where is that coming from, human pollution such as soot, forest fires? My theories are just that and maybe BS, if it is BS let them be rejected hopefully by proven data not computer modeling. But my larger view remains that we are over relying on one hypothesis.

Last edited by ASPartOfMe on 16 Apr 2015, 9:33 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Actually, I discuss how the melting ice can contribute to the warning and why it is a part of anthropogenic climate change in a post in this thread. The second video does the same thing.

If the rapid rate of warming would destroy so many life forms, why didn't they all die out at the end of the Younger Dryas?

The current warming is occurring at 10 times the rate as occurred following ice ages. In answer to your question, it was likely because the warming was much more gradual, giving many organisms time to adapt.

This was discussed in the second video.