Why do so many people think that global warming is a hoax?



  1. 0 Votes

    People strongly believe both sides of the global climate change issue because there is contraditory information going around and they are unable to decipher what the truth is. While the scientific research varies, the real reason for such discrepencies in opinion is that there are people marketing those opinions. Perhaps, then, the reason so many people think global climate change is a hoax is because other people are trying to convice them that it is and those being conviced have low standards for evidence.

  2. 0 Votes

    Another issue is that the industries that are the main cause of the emissions that create global warming don’t want to be shut down. These industries are very powerful and have lots of money, so they can pay scientists to show data that doesn’t necessarily knock global warming out, but makes it look like it’s not as bad as everyone says.

  3. 0 Votes

    Some people believe that global warming is a hoax simply because, in some areas of the Untied States at least, such as New York, or New Jersey, or Northern California, the winters are longer and colder. There is more snow and rain. However, summer’s are getting hotter and there is plenty of scientific evidence that shows that global warming exists and is worsening. True, global warming may occur naturally without any human interference, but it would be far slower; what humans have done and are doing with and to the environment are speeding global warming and its effects. Also, people may not necessarily believe it to be a hoax, they acknowledge it exists, but deny that humans have caused it. They think that global warming would be happening anyway, so not to worry about it.

  4. 0 Votes

    Eight Reasons to End the Scam (Global Warming)-Thought this was a really funny article and had to paste it in its entirety. 

    Concern over “global warming” is overblown and misdirected. What follows are eight reasons why we should pull the plug on this scam before it destroys billions of dollars of wealth and millions of jobs.

    1. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate. More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (Go to http://www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.

    2. Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend. Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.

    3. Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes. All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers’ expectations, modelers resort to “flux adjustments” that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says “climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable.”

    4. The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming. Alarmists frequently quote the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organization, to support their predictions. But here is what the IPCC’s latest report, Climate Change 2001, actually says about predicting the future climate: “The Earth’s atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes.”

    5. A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization. Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 800 to 1200 AD), which allowed the Vikings to settle presently inhospitable Greenland, were higher than even the worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC. The period from about 5000-3000 BC, known as the “climatic optimum,” was even warmer and marked “a time when mankind began to build its first civilizations,” observe James Plummer and Frances B. Smith in a study for Consumer Alert. “There is good reason to believe that a warmer climate would have a similar effect on the health and welfare of our own far more advanced and adaptable civilization today.”

    6. Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earth’s climate from changing. Reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to 7 percent below 1990’s levels by the year 2012–the target set by the Kyoto Protocol–would require higher energy taxes and regulations causing the nation to lose 2.4 million jobs and $300 billion in annual economic output. Average household income nationwide would fall by $2,700, and state tax revenues would decline by $93.1 billion due to less taxable earned income and sales, and lower property values. Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol by all participating nations would reduce global temperature in the year 2100 by a mere 0.14 degrees Celsius.

    7. Efforts by state governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are even more expensive and threaten to bust state budgets. After raising their spending with reckless abandon during the 1990s, states now face a cumulative projected deficit of more than $90 billion. Incredibly, most states nevertheless persist in backing unnecessary and expensive greenhouse gas reduction programs. New Jersey, for example, collects $358 million a year in utility taxes to fund greenhouse gas reduction programs. Such programs will have no impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. All they do is destroy jobs and waste money.

    8. The best strategy to pursue is “no regrets.” The alternative to demands for immediate action to “stop global warming” is not to do nothing. The best strategy is to invest in atmospheric research now and in reducing emissions sometime in the future if the science becomes more compelling. In the meantime, investments should be made to reduce emissions only when such investments make economic sense in their own right.

    This strategy is called “no regrets,” and it is roughly what the Bush administration has been doing. The U.S. spends more on global warming research each year than the entire rest of the world combined, and American businesses are leading the way in demonstrating new technologies for reducing and sequestering greenhouse gas emissions.

  5. 0 Votes

    A lot of people believe global warming is a hoax because the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is relatively small, less than 4%.  I can understand this point, but you also have to understand that everything in nature is a delicate balance.  If we were 100 feet further away from the sun we would have a totally different planet. 

  6. 0 Votes

    alotof peole believe this because some people just think the earth is changing and this is the result

  7. 0 Votes

    One of the main problems is that global climate change has become a politicized. While Al Gore’s an Inconvenient Truth has had success educating and motivating people, people began to see global warming as a democratic party issue, which made many republicans skeptical. Some scientists have data to argue against it, and some people may simply be in denial. There may be 17,000 scientists that signed a petition against it, but around 97% of scientists believe that climate change is being caused by the tons upon tons of pollutants humans are putting in the atmosphere everyday.

    The science for warming is quite simple. CO2 warms our atmosphere enough for us to live on the planet. Venus is hotter than Mercury even though Venus is double the distance from the sun because of the CO2 in its atmosphere. To think that all the CO2 we are putting in the air is just vanishing is not realistic. Climate does change naturally, but we know these gases warm the atmosphere. I would think that people against climate change would have more conflicts of interest because companies will have to pay to update technology to pollute less. I don’t know what personal benefit the scientists that support climate change would be getting by lying about it. 

    Regardless of whether climate change is occuring, we should want to pollute the air less (air pollution causes all sorts of illnesses), produce less waste (with the population growing as it does, we’ll need all the land for housing we can get), be more energy independent (cleaner technology can boost our economy because we can export new technology and products), and make the world a better place to live in by protecting our resources. 

  8. 0 Votes

    I also have to add (and I don’t mean to offend anyone in saying this) that religious organizations have alot to do with why people don’t believe in global warming. I used to canvass for the Western Climate Initiative in 2008, a piece of legislation that would cap CO2 emissions in four states. I went door-to-door to talk to people and get their support for the initiative and I always heard religion as an excuse as to why they wouldn’t support it. I am not going to go into great detail about what people said, because again, I don’t want to offend anyone. I will just note that religion and science have been at odds for centuries and they just can’t seem to find any common ground, especially when it comes to environmental issues. 

Please signup or login to answer this question.

Sorry,At this time user registration is disabled. We will open registration soon!