What's worse, being in denial or a hypocrite?

Question

Okay, so I confess my question may sound bold but so many deniers in this section seems to think that everyone believing in Global warming but not transforming into cavemen/women are hypocrites?

Makes me wonder if this is the reason they continue to deny global warming? They don't want to go back to the caves and would consider them selves hypocrites otherwise?

Isn't the slightest step in the right direction towards less emissions better than none?

What do you think?

My question above should have been "hypocrite" in quotes. Some global warming deniers seems to think there can be only three types of people:
1. Global warming Deniers
2. Global warming cavemen and
3. Global warming hypocrites

Answer 1

Between being a global warming denier and hypocrite, it's worse to be a denier. At least a hypocrite is willing to acknowledge the problem and take steps to address it. To deny the problem exists is the worst thing we can do.

Of course the best thing to do is acknowledge the problem and do what we can to solve it. This is what many environmentalists do, but global warming deniers try to paint all environmentalists has hypocrites because it assuages their guilt over driving SUVs and damaging the environment if they can convince themselves that environmentalists are no better.

Answer 2

I think the idea of the need to become cavemen to prevent the problems caused by greenhouse gases is quite excessive, and anyone even suggesting it, needs to get a better education.
Anyone suggesting a person needs to become a caveman to prevent global warming doesn't really know the kind of knowledge man has, and the technologoies we are capable of producing to remedy the problem without such nonsense.
The people suggesting a person is a hypocrite for not becoming a caveman to prevent global warming, is in that same boat, just a different extreme.
We are more than capable of remediating many greenhouse gases as they are produced. The biggest problem preventing it from occuring now, is research has to be conducted to make sure many of these methods aren't going to contribute other problems that damage the environment.
Realistically speaking, if a person wants to use that arguement as a reason not to switch to technology, if they can afford them, that will save them on their utility bills, should anyone even consider what they say, as being logical?

When you think in terms of the individual, an individuals effects on global warming is quite insignificant, and small changes will not do much of anything. BUT, when many millions of individuals make those same changes, they aren't only conserving resources, but also making a huge impact.

Even Al Gore in is quest for this global cause, hasn't asked anyone to do anything but make minor individual changes that aren't very extreme measure.
Just change out regular lightbulbs with CFLs, turn off lights when not in use, and other measures that reduce energy use that has been distributed in educational flyers distributed by many electrical companies, and government organizations since the 1970s.

Not sure about anyone else, but I would comply with many of the measures to prevent gobal wamring, even if it was not a problem, if for no other reason than to save myself money.

Answer 3

What I see here is some people asking questions about global warming, trying to learn, and people trying to answer the questions, trying to teach. Then there's that clique of bullies that immediately pounce on the people who ask the questions and start telling them their question is misguided and that they are stupid for asking it. As one of the questioners noted this is more often than not done without reading what was posted. That's really outside the whole "Q&A" theme of this section, is it not? It would seem those folks would be better adapted to WWF, Texas Holdem or Fantasy Football. I guess the reason they're here is that in those places they'd be among their own kind, and in some cases evenly matched or outmatched. Here they can annoy the curious and the knowledgeable alike with impunity. It's less work than learning something, less risky than coming out of their Mom's basement, and less frightening than taking their hand off their penises.

Answer 4

Just keep making those little changes to help fight global warming.

But those little changes don't make a dent! Well at least they have been used as mental reinforcements so that you can ask government to make drastic moves to stop global warming. That is what those little steps are about. To make you "believe."

The big steps will be taken by governments on an international scale. These include carbon credits, carbon trading, carbon offsetting, and carbon taxing. These will have a DEVASTATING AFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. You can read all about it here:

http://www.carbontradewatch.org/

This is why I consider GW Alarming activists to be hypocrites. They either:

a.) pretend to be for the environment, and know the effects of legislation and plan to make a profit on environmental disaster

b.) Are in denial and are putting their heads in the sand while all this nonsense legislation is happening while living in the illusion that they are helping the environment when they are actually destroying it and the ability of poor nations from getting out of their desperate conditions.

It's hard for me to believe that people can be so cruel. Especially since so many Global Warming activists "act" so concerned. So I'm assuming that it's because PEOPLE DON'T KNOW THE END RESULT OF WHAT THEY ARE DOING.

A Global Warming Activist is both in denial and is a hypocrite, pardon me for being so blunt.

Answer 5

"Isn't the slightest step in the right direction towards less emissions better than none?"

If the problem is as bad as Global Warming Advcates say it is, then adding a few grains of sand is not going to extend the beach out away from the porch. You'd best move inland.

Answer 6

I believe it's the believers who want to move everyone back into caves. First you have to get rid of cars, then big homes, then homes, then heating, and all luxury items.....

If global warming is real, then you should be able to tell me what the temperature of the climate is going to be 6 months from now, 1 year, 2 years, and 5 years if we keep the current CO2 emission rate steady.

What's that? You can't determine the temperature? You just know it's going to get warmer because that's what the "consensus" tells you will happen?

Yea, thought so....

Answer 7

Six of one, half dozen of the other.

I think being a hypocrite is worse, because in theory you know better.

Being in denial is a common response to horrific situations. Many of these naysayers can and will come around when documentation/research reaches an irrefutable level or the sky begins to fall. Chicken Little would have been all over this!

Answer 8

What's particularly wrong is saying that the existence of a few celebrity hypocrites somehow makes thousands of scientists and the scientific truth of global warming questionable. That "argument" is made here all the time.

How can anybody seriously buy that? It's just a bad rationalization for denial.

Answer 9

I suppose that the ultimate hypocrisy is displayed by those who wave the global warming flag, then drive hybrid cars , which take ridiculous amounts of energy to produce in the first place.

Exploring and implementing renewable energy sources makes good sense, but not because the earth is going through one of it's cooling / warming cycles as it has done for millions of years.

Remember, in the late 70's...All of the "experts" predicted we were heading for another ice age. What happend with that?

So, the summary answer is that those smart enough to realize that the concept of global warming has no credence, are neither hypocritical of in a state of denial..They are just wise enough to discern hype from science.

Answer 10

i would say being a hypocrite, but not in relation to global warming. someone might dislike another person who does not wish to realize the obvious, but to say that person forbids everyone to do something and then goes back on their word is wrong. i also don't believe that we would have to resort to becoming cavemen/women, but instead to just cut down on our pollution, and maybe patch up the ozone hole a little bit (lightning does that u kno)