What Im always also very surprised by is that for example, many of you say that scientists are wrong, measurements are inaccurate etc etc. However, you also argue by saying that global warming does not exist because there were situations like this in the past, that the Earth is not getting warmer based on some past measurements etc etc. But don´t you think it is absurd? You are basically saying that the measurements that prove GW are inaccurate and that it cannot be said what was in the past, yet those same people argue against GW by saying that this has happened in the past that the overall amount of ice does not change, that the global averages are just a deviation, that the levels of CO2 were this high in the past too.... and now let me ask you... how do you know that... isnt that also measured? Sometimes even using the exact same techniques and methods?
OK, let me just say one thing I have never mentined before, it is just my opinion and you might believe it or not.
As some of you know, I studied molecular biology and genetics, and at the uni I also specialized in neurosciences, basically the study of the human brain. I read many books about psychology too and before I got so excited about weather I for example read books about how the human mind works and reacts to commercials, how the human mind can be tricked, phenomena such as phanotm limb etc etc.
You might be thinking how is all this related to global warming... well IMHO it is. What I see here, is a great example of something called negative subjective argumentation. To explain what I mean. Just imagine that global warming is real and that we as humans make it substantially worse and that it will have serious consequences, maybe not so serious in the near future, maybe not even during your lifetime, but in a more distant future yes. This is what I personally believe, but let´s just say I give you many arguments for this theory. On one hand, you feel that it is correct, something inside you tells you that doing what we are is not right, that something should be done, that one should sacrifice things even though they might not see the beneficial effects of this immediately, if ever (by ever I mean they will not manifest during our lifetime, but they will in the future). However, you also have many reasons why you do not want to do this, despite the fact that it is true. You feel it would be right to do it, but you don´t want to sacrifice things, you don´t want to limit yourself, you don´t want the government to spend money on this - because that is something you will benefit from, in the immediate terms and short-term too.
And here comes the "brain part". Negative subjective argumentation is in simple words like an inner voice, that on one hand tells you something is incorrect, but you subconscioussly persuade yourself that it is actually ok to do it and you find reasons for why it is so, sometimes even very irrational. The final outcome is that you do things you would otherwise consider unwise and short-sighted and you would probably not like others doing unless you do it as well. If however you are confronted with someone saying you should not be doing it, that it is wrong, you tell them the reasons why it is ok.
Here in the Czech Republic, the majority of people believe in global warming, and they do believe that it is caused by humans. However, many refuse to accept some of the proposed changes that will lead to cutting emissions etc. Why? In the case of my country, based on what I see, it is mostly like this - people feel it is wrong not to accept it (just like I explained above), but in this case the reason they find for themselves to do it is that we are such a small country that it won´t make any difference if our government accepts something or not.
This would basically also explain the opinion of many of you in the U.S. Obivously this reason would not be applicable - you are one of the largest countries in the world, and contributing to the global released emissions etc. very substantially. So you find different reasons for yourself why it can´t be so and why it is ok to do what you want to do that you will benefit from in short-term - i.e. the governments lie to us, the numbers are inaccurate etc etc. The U.S. has always been very economically driven and so the primary goal was often making profit, doing something altruistically for future generations might be difficult, though on the other hand you do feel it should be done.
You are probably going to deny this, not accept what I just wrote and basically do it for the very exact reason I gave. Maybe you will feel I am correct, but higher parts of the human brain (which btw. is amazing sophisticated "machine"... Ive seen it
) will subconscioussly find reasons why it cannot be so.
