Why deny global warming

Senator [7]. Following the science tells us two basic things: fossil fuel burning increases atmospheric levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases, and greenhouse gas increases warm the planet. March 14, American Climate Attitudes. May, Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond? European Journal of Public Health. Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.

January, Home Facts and Metrics Who are the Deniers? Think of the noble oak tree, if you will. In the past, if its environment became too hot, a tree would of simply drop its acorns a few metres north each winter, and over hundreds of years move 50 miles north where it was cooler. The problem is that now, with humans having urbanised so much of the environment, that acorn will likely hit concrete before reaching its promised land.

Hold tight, this one is really simple. The sun heats the planet. Heat evaporates water. Vapour gathers as clouds. Rain falls from clouds. In short: the hotter, the wetter. Recent research from the University of Hull into Libyan weather patterns over the last 10, years has born this to be true, with rainfall increasing alongside a rise in average yearly temperature.

Can we please put this one to bed now? The models are experiments, not oracles!. Economists, however, suggest we could fix climate change now by spending 1 percent of world GDP. Perhaps even less if the cost savings from improved human health and expansion of the global green economy are taken into account. But if we don't act now, by it could cost over 20 percent of world GDP. So setting aside just 1 percent to deal with climate change would make little overall difference and would save the world a huge amount of money.

This amounts to 6 percent of world GDP. The International Monetary Fund estimates that efficient fossil fuel pricing would lower global carbon emissions by 28 percent, fossil fuel air pollution deaths by 46 percent, and increase government revenue by 3. Climate change deniers also argue that climate change is good for us. They suggest longer, warmer summers in the temperate zone will make farming more productive.

These gains, however, are often offset by the drier summers and increased frequency of heatwaves in those same areas. For example, the "Moscow" heatwave killed 11, people , devastated the Russian wheat harvest and increased global food prices.

More than 40 percent of the world's population also lives in the Tropics — where from both a human health prospective and an increase in desertification no one wants summer temperatures to rise. Deniers also point out that plants need atmospheric carbon dioxide to grow so having more of it acts like a fertiliser.

This is indeed true and the land biosphere has been absorbing about a quarter of our carbon dioxide pollution every year. Another quarter of our emissions is absorbed by the oceans. But losing massive areas of natural vegetation through deforestation and changes in land use completely nullifies this minor fertilisation effect.

Climate change deniers will tell you that more people die of the cold than heat, so warmer winters will be a good thing. This is deeply misleading.

Vulnerable people die of the cold because of poor housing and not being able to afford to heat their homes. Society, not climate, kills them. This argument is also factually incorrect. In the US, for example, heat-related deaths are four times higher than cold-related ones.