What is the motivation for an average person to try to diprove global warming?

Question

Science itself isn't really divided on the issue of Global Warming. The data in support of the human contribution to global warming is vast. The motivation for Big Oil and right-wing radio shock-jocks to attack global warming is obvious ($$$).

But what reason does the average unwashed person have to attack those seeking change in climate and energy policy?

Reducing emissions would reduce polution, reduce long-term energy costs, and increase economic prosperity across the entire Western World.

What motivation does the average right-wing person have to so visciously attack the policies of climate change? Why isn't the connection between Big Oil profits and current policy as obvious to them as it is to any informed individual?

Given that there are no real downsides to adjusting energy policy to utilize better, more efficient fuels... why is the right-wing so focused on attacking science?

Responses should not include discussion of Al Gore. Al Gore did not originate the study of global warming. It's not his idea, nor does he claim it is.

Attacking Al Gore is out of bounds for this question, and only shows an extreme bias on the part of the answering individual.

Pointing out that global warming, in general, is part of a natural trend is also out of bounds. That is not disputed by environmental scientists... why would it be? They explained the cycle of ice age/warming trend in the first place. That global warming has a natural component is not a revelation.

What is also not being disputed in science is that there is a human component to global warming in effect right now.

We're talking about policy here. There are no downsides to a progressive energy policy. Why does the right-wing constantly attempt to derail positive movement in energy policy? What is the motivation of the average conservative in doing so?

Clarification: I did not change the rules of the question. I set some limits on the stock answers that people were giving.

Al Gore is out of bounds because my question was, simply put, not about Al Gore. If Al Gore comes into it in any way it's because people don't like Al Gore. I already know that some people don't like Al Gore, that's not enlightening. And anyone disagreeing with Global Warming because they don't like Al Gore doesn't really have a valid reason. Al Gore and global warming are two different things.

I put "because it's a natural phenomenon" out of bounds because that's not a good answer either. I even, in my original question, listed other benefits to a progressive energy policy besides avoiding global warming.

It's called clarification. People answering "Al Gore" and "Global warming is natural" simply weren't answering the question. The question was not "do you believe in global warming?" It was regarding opposition to policy changes.

Answer 1

Many people try to disprove global warming because:
- They don't see it happening yet themselves (like it should be happening over night like in the movies) or don't encounter the concequences yet themselves.
- They might start to feel guilty when they realise it's them that caused it with their (amongst others) SUV's and AC everywhere, so they hide behind unrational reasoning.
- The can never admit they have been, or are wrong.
- They don't want to change their lifestyle.
- They're just ignorant.
- They don't believe anything, except for that the liberals created global warming to scare them, Bush ordered the planes in the towers, the government and/or aliens are spraying our planet with unknown chemicals (chemtrails, they're hilarious), god created humans 6000 years ago, etc, etc.
- The bible, nor Nostradamus mention it, so this is not supposed to happen.

Answer 2

Somehow my first answer did not make it (it was good too), so here we go again.

#1. Gore is fair game because he is the biggest mouthpiece of the issue at the time. You think his entourage drives environmentally friendly vehicles? no.

#2. Ignoring the natural element ignores the fact that plicy change won't matter because you can't legislate nature.

#3. There are downsides of policy changes. Mandating hybrid cars is impractical because many can't afford them. Mandating solar energy is impractical because they are only 20% efficient right now. Taxes will have to be raised for businesses and government to meet new guidelines. That hits middle class folks in the pocket book.

"why is the right-wing so focused on attacking science?"
Why is the left ignoring science? Most of America was one big glacier, but they melted. This was long before man.

Am I saying man is guilt free? No. I am just saying that many of the doomsdayers are creating hysteria for no reason. The politicians who drive big SUVs and own stock in companies that pollute know that it is a good soundbite to make them sound good.

Edit: Why is it that the supporters of the question are all resorting to name calling? Why did the asker change the rules of the question? Shows how weak their position is when all they have to debate with are the same as the average elementary school playground.

Answer 3

To the people who say this is an invention of the left,

I suppose these guys are lefties?

"The science of global warming is clear. We know enough to act now. We must act now."

James Rogers, CEO of Charlotte-based Duke Energy.

"Our nation has both an obligation and self-interest in facing head-on the serious environmental, economic and national security threat posed by global warming."

Senator John McCain, Arizona

"These technologies will help us become better stewards of the environment - and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change."

President George Bush

And the chief country that denies? Communist China. Guess they're conservatives.

To the questioner.

Fighting global warming will require that people spend money. And change their lifestyle. It's so much easier to just deny it. And the deniers just think it's their children's problem (or, more likely they don't have children). They're guessing wrong, but....

Besides there's good money in denying it.

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/uk/news/article_1254871.php/Scientists_offered_cash_to_dispute_climate_change_study_-_report

Note that that's not a research grant. It's just a straight bribe to get some unscrupulous scientists to deny.

Answer 4

I'm sorry you think that people who disagree with the global warming THEORY are all right-wingers. However, it is good to have dissent when people are trying to bring science into the debate when the environment has no real scientific model. You really should look at how people handled the theory of eugenics back in the early part of the 1900's. There were many scientists who believed that certain races and ethnicities were advatageous over other people. Now that we have discovered DNA and genes we know that not to be true. Environmentalists scream how humans should not atempt to effect nature with pollution and chemicals blah blah blah, but they want humans to intervene when they feel nature needs to be changed, like controlling animal populations and global warming blah blah blah. Look at the data, know the source of the data too, and then come up with your own decisions about global warming. All in all, we have no power over it, because the politicians have the ball now.

BTW Marcus, you need to read more than just skim over my post. I was not saying people are different because of their race, I was saying, scientists used eugenics to justify that theory before it was proven to be false.

Answer 5

My motivation for disputing anthropogenic global warming is to protect the institutions of science. Why should the general public ever give credence to the opinion of scientists if, no matter what their motivation, they promote a theory that identifies a cause as an effect and an effect as a cause. This is what anthropogenic global warming proponents are doing when they offer carbon dioxide concentration as a cause of global warming.

They offer this proposal even when armed with the Vostok data which shows that over 400,000 years of temperature and carbon dioxide concentration data that the carbon dioxide concentration *never* preceded temperature change and, therefore, cannot be viewed as a cause for global warming. Data that is *fully* explained by the temperature dependence of sea water’s ability to dissolve carbon dioxide.

Even in the face of 400,000 years of concrete data that carbon dioxide has *never* led to temperature change, they propose carbon dioxide emission from fossil-fuel use as such a progenitor. Such a horrible conclusion in opposition to the data can only serve to diminish the public’s confidence in science and scientists. The very scientists that they fund from their own pockets in the assumption that those scientist’s intellectual prowess will benefit mankind. To not dispute such an obviously flawed conclusion is to risk the wrath of the public which suffers my existence as a scientist.

EDIT:

Since you have, apparently, decided to narrow your focus to policy, let me respond in kind. To set public policy based on the flawed conclusions of scientists is, again, to risk the wrath of the public when those flaws are revealed in time. I would rather do my job and point out those flaws when I find them.

Answer 6

Quite honestly, they lack the intelligence to understand global warming. It just plain doesn't seem feasible to them. At least the politicians have a reason to not acknowledge global warming.

I am not left wing either, so there goes 90% of the responses....


ph_yo -- How wrong you are. All races are not created equal. Lactose intolerance is more prevelant in some races then in others. Certain other diseases are commonly found in a certain race. The color of ones skin determines how well they can handle to sun. We haven't even begun to be able to explain all of the genes. The environment most definately follows a scientific model (a complex one perhaps). Really though, what do you know about science?

Answer 7

Global warming is being used by the Left as a means of grabing power away from the people. They want the Govenrment to regulate the energy industry and just use global warming as their latest excuse. We have built a world that can not feed it's peopple without the use of huge amounts of energy. If we slow down the economy we will start starving people. The only cure for global warming is to kill off 3 billion humans so that we don't need to burn so much fuel to eat. I'd rather have a warmer world than submit to that option.

Answer 8

I've seen and know of many situations where crisis' were fabricated (Sept/11/2001 for example, or some of Hitler's invasion strategies). I'm not a ring wing zealot and I'm all for responsible stewardship of this earth of ours. However, I'm not in favour of a flawed resolution like Kyoto which allows countries like China and India to continue with their destructive econonomic ways while punishing countries who are ernestly trying to lower emissions with out being raked over the coals financially by some puppet U.N. organization. I truly believe that humankind is intelligent enough to find real solutions without interference from globalist, one world order, freaks like the U.N.

Answer 9

A love of reality concerning this Big Lie by the liberal leftist lunatic, Al Gore, who also claims to have "invented the Internet."

May I suggest, sir, that YOU are a part of the liberal leftist unwashed masses, as your name indicates?

Please answer the following sir: "How and why did all of the previous ice ages melt?"

EDIT:

Sir, are you now trying to dictate the terms of the answers, and in typical liberal fashion trying to restrict Freedom of Speech because you hate the truth?

VERY WELL - WE'LL PLAY BY YOUR RULES - ANSWER THE ABOVE QUESTION THAT DOES NOT REFERENCE AL GORE!

ANSWER THE ABOVE QUESTION!

ANSWER THE ABOVE QUESTION and stop avoiding it!

UPDATE: I notice that you have posted more details, but still have not answered the question. Please do so at this time!

Answer 10

People don't accept that their wasteful lifestyles are harming the planet.