Are all global warming deniers oil company stockholders?

Question

If not, why are they so worried about protecting big oil revenue?

Answer 1

No, I've got a lot of experience dealing with deniers, and I think I've got a pretty good idea of their mindset.

Basically it's a combination of not understanding the science (or simply ignoring the science) and not wanting to believe that humans are causing global warming. People are very good at finding ways to believe what they want to believe. When a person wants to remain in denial, there's not much you can do to convince them that they're wrong.

I think the reason they don't want to believe that we're the problem is that it would be too inconvenient. We would have to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, which means they would have to get rid of their gas guzzlers and turn down the thermostat and inconvenient things like that. Plus they would have to admit that Al Gore was right, after spending years making fun of him.

As Bush has illustrated, conservatives tend to be very bad at admitting that they were ever wrong.

Answer 2

No, they are probably more like I_tone and are pissed off at the incessant alarmism. We, for example, used to have a membership to the NDRC, but eventually it was the NDRC's incessant alarmism that burnt us out. Eventually we just though, "you know what? SCREW THE ENVIRONMENT! LET THE DIMWITS OBLITERATE IT AND GET IT OVER WITH NOW!!!" But then nothing happened. No end of the world happened. Polar bears still live. Wolves still live. Sure, GW Bush doesn't give a damn about these things, but if people don't care enough to elect a president that doesn't constantly place his own corporate profits over the natural and human health risks of oil spills and local pollution that causes nice things like asthma, then why care at all? Let it all die.

People that protect big oil revenues may not all know that this is what they are doing. Sure. The oil company stockholders are all going to do their thing, but not all people fed up with the Environmental movement's alarmism are fine with that either.

Case in point: ourselves. Wind power is a form of power generation that could be owned on privately owned FAMILY properties, allowing HUMAN citizens to generate their own power supplies and at the same time cut off the supply of funds being funneled to nutjobs and terrorists in the Middle East. Obviously not everyone owns private property, but enough individuals could generate power to feed back into the grid and eliminate things like nuclear power plants and coal and oil plants that pollute or leave waste hazards. The supposed killing of birds is no more than these other forms of power generation, but if it means killing their profits, oil barrons will cry foul if just a single pidgeon were killed by a wind generator. The last thing they want is empowered citizens having their own limitless power supply that can't be solely controlled by the corporate mafia.

Answer 3

Most are not. Most are somehow connected to the working world and would be adversely affected by policy changes that attempt to resolve potential global climate problems. Note that not all are strict deniers, but many are rather skeptics. Burden of proof is on the believers to prove their case and so far they've been unsuccessful, because the science hasn't caught up yet. I take extreme issues with the alarmists who claim we face imminent danger and offer no proof. This is fear mongering, it's the same tactic Bush uses to convince us we're in danger (I don't believe we are; I don't fear terrorists) and it's decried by the same people who believe Gore for using it. This tactic should not be respected wherever it is used. It is this very tactic that drew criticism for Gore in a ruling recently made in Europe concerning the exhibition of his film to school students. Making children fear global warming to get them to believe is wrong!

Conversely, why are global warming alarmists so intent on destroying big oil revenues?

Answer 4

9 Errors to Inconvenient truth

1 Error: Mr. Gore asserted that a sea level rise of up to 20 feet would be casued by melting of ice sheets “in the near future”
JUDGE: “This is distinctly alarmist:, and will only occur after, and over, millennia.”
2 Error: Low-lying pacific atolls have already been evacuated.
JUDGE: There was no evidence of any evacuation having yet happened.
3 Error: The Gulf Stream, that warms up the Atlantic, would shut down.
JUDGE: It was “very unlikely” it would shut down in the future, though it might slow down
4: Error: Graphs showing a rise in CO2 and the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years showed “an exact fit.”
JUDGE: There was a connection, but “the two graphs do not establish what Mr. Gore asserts”.
5 Error: The disappearance of snow on Mt. Kilimanjaro was due to global warming.
JUDGE: It cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt. Kilimanjaro is mainly attributed to human induced climate change.
6 Error: The drying up of Lake Chad is a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming.
JUDGE: Insufficient to establish the exact cause.
7 Error: Hurricane Katrina blamed on global warming
JUDGE: There was insufficient evidence to support that.
8 Error: Polar bears were being found that had actually drowned “swimming long distances-up to 60 miles-to find the ice”.
JUDGE: Only four polar bears have recently been found drowned, because of a storm.
9 Error: Coral reefs were bleaching because of global warming and other factors.
JUDGE: Separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from oter stresses, such as over-fishing and pollution, was difficult
The British newspapers are full of stories this morning about a High Court judge's criticisms of Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth movie. See The Times, Daily Mail and Guardian.
Mr Justice Barton had been asked to rule on the film after the British Government had announced plans to have it distributed throughout the nation's schools.
Justice Barton found 'nine scientific errors' in the film and accused Mr Gore of "alarmism" and "exaggeration". Although he agreed that the film was "powerful, dramatically presented and highly professionally produced," he said that it was a political film and was so "one-sided" that it needed to be accompanied with other materials that provided pupils with balance if the Government was to continue with its plans to distribute it to schools.
The nine errors are summarised in the Daily Mail graphic that is reproduced on the right (click to enlarge).
Even the environment analyst of the BBC - which has been at the forefront of campaigning for action on climate change and was recently forced into cancelling a day of programmes dedicated to the subject - said the ruling would be "embarrassing" for Al Gore.
The Conservative Party's environment spokesman, Peter Ainsworth, has called upon the Government to prepare "a proper, up to-date, education pack about climate change - based on current evidence" and distribute that to schools, rather than the Al Gore movie.

Answer 5

intercourse reasons toddlers and pouring CO2 and methane gasoline into our paper skinny environment enables warmth to stay interior the decrease environment truly or radiating returned into area at night. there's no technology that denies those 2 data. extra data: Summers ARE longer and winters ARE shorter. The artic tundra is popping boggy. The tree line IS shifting further north. basically as a results of fact some human beings have faith that the stork brings toddlers and that climate exchange at this actual element in historic previous has not something to do with synthetic pollutants does not make it real. technology is documents and the advice warns us that we are heading for some radical variations lots previously later. As an aside, I doubt if there truly are 31,000 climate scientists interior the international, much less 31,000 climate scientists that don't think in climate exchange. My opinion.

Answer 6

No, but all oil company stockholders are global warming deniers...

Answer 7

Seriously, they've bought into the propaganda. They best be getting some kickback. Green technologies is a multi billion dollar industry too.

Edit: It must be a high school diploma referenced below as the PhDs are the ones who have theorized and cited evidence regarding climate change issues.

Answer 8

My idiot brother thinks its a global conspiracy, by some ruling elite, to keep us all scared there by more easily controlled. He has no oil shares

Answer 9

They are just fox news watchers, with judgments to hold onto,
it seems a worldview that is dieing that they refuse to let go of...

pre-marital sex
selling their soul to one mate for life despite if you love them
supporting the corporations with their life
often they are so proud of their measly accomplishments of movement up the pecking order they refuse to help anyone lower...
it seems all of these worldviews are tied with a belief that we are not polluting our environment,,,, and have a divine right to destroy it...

Answer 10

Some people put on their political blinders and refuse to ever take them off. When they hear conflicting information, they stick their fingers in their ears and yell "NANANANANA" to shut it out. These are the same people who still believe that Saddam Hussein destroyed the World Trade Center, who think that racism is dead, and who believe that it's not torture if we simply define it that way. Ignore them. They're loud, but they matter less and less.