Given this information, are sceptics of global warming more likely to accept the reality of it or are there other excuses or hypothesis that they can cling to?
Additional Details
5 months ago
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7327...5 months ago
Typo: ignore the %26quot;deniers%26quot; in the topic, I must have missed deleting it when I reworded it as sceptics.5 months ago
Tyler, a debate means nothing compared to actual research and evidence.What I found most ridiculous about that video is that it starts with the words %26quot;You decide%26quot;, like scientific research is open to public critique. Most of the public doesn%26#039;t even know where to get the results of research into climate change, why would their opinion be considered in favour of observations of real scientists who have actually studied climate change?
The essence of denialists is that nothing will convince them they%26#039;re wrong, no matter how strong the evidence. If they need to, they%26#039;ll just find a new %26quot;theory%26quot; explaining why humans aren%26#039;t causing global warming, or why it%26#039;s a good thing that we are.
To address Tyler - I didn%26#039;t watch his YouTube video, but %26quot;the scientific evidence of the correlation of CO2 to be inversely related to temperature%26quot;? Are you serious? You%26#039;re trying to argue that a greenhouse gas causes temperatures to decrease?
Please crack open a science book and read up on the greenhouse effect. If you don%26#039;t understand the most basic science, you%26#039;re certainly not going to understand the man-made global warming theory. And if you don%26#039;t understand the theory, you shouldn%26#039;t be forming conclusions about whether or not it%26#039;s right.
This is a great example of the problem with global warming %26#039;skeptics%26#039; - generally they simply don%26#039;t understand the science. They think the Sun is causing global warming even though its output has not increased on average over the past 30 years as global temperatures have increased 0.5°C, or they think the greenhouse effect doesn%26#039;t exist, or have some other very basic scientific misunderstanding. It%26#039;s not about denial, just representing science in a objective manner. Why all the bogus laments? Report Abuse I guess I%26#039;m in denial over Santa Clause, too. Btw: The whole %26quot;evolution%26quot; denial comparison really doesn%26#039;t work as well as you would hope, seeing as most of us accept evolution for the very same reasons we reject AGW. Report Abuse
* You must be logged into Answers to add comments. Sign in or Register.
Other Answers (13)
-
Sceptics believe what they want. Their carefully constructed arguments mat fall away but new ones will take their place. Is there a consipracy to cover up that global warming is a myth? Just like the one about man landing on the moon.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/...
The list is endless.........
No Co2 is not causing the warming it%26#039;s a retention factor. You said so yourself??? Chicken and the egg...you and Dana both need some remedial studies.
Heck I%26#039;m going to report myself...I do apologize to the poser of this question and the others. But the logic implied by the alarmist is beyond any type of comprehension. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/solar-... -
I would first like to give a word to Ammego Mccain!! and others like him:When you say you are burning your trash, not recycling, and so on, you will be the ones that suffer most, and what you are doing is out of pure greed, ignorance, and arrogancy. And when people like you say that they believe in the bible, obviously not. You are contradicting yourself. You should be arrested. That is far worse than dealing crack, which btw your famed George Dubya used to do.
Second of all to answer your questions: Skeptics will be Skeptics, they have false answers, and we have facts. We will rarely change the minds of the arrogant, but save the lives of others.
In 20 years, when the sever consequences come into play, they will be impacted first, and the worst. And they will be looking back and thinking, damn, we should%26#039;ve listened to the facts, and such. -
It will only lessen the %26quot;cosmic ray%26quot; theorists...there are other explanations much more plausible than CO2. For all we know, man COULD be responsible...but it could be in the form of microwave pollution. Temperature rise correlates nicely with the increase of microwave use as a communications medium...and water vapor is a much better greenhouse gas than CO2.
Until man better understands this complex system, I will continue to believe the Sun warms the Earth. -
Dana, solar flares can disrupt the Earth%26#039;s magnetic field causing more absorption of the sun%26#039;s direct rays.
If is was absolutely proven, why hasn%26#039;t anyone come out and say they are 100% positive? Cause they can%26#039;t.
Mady, you can%26#039;t change the minds of the arrogant. You seem arrogant with your claims that you have facts and skeptics has false data. You should look in the mirror before you judge someone. -
No. This has been known for quite awhile and most of them still haven%26#039;t gotten the memo, since solar activity is one of their favorite lines of BS.