I'm not asking whether people have the right to an opinion, of course they do.
Usually, one or more of the following:
1. They fear some imagined takeover of society by "greens", "communists", or whatever other group they imagine fabricated AGW, and they wish to stop this takeover.
2. They fear that taking action against AGW will mean they can no longer heat their homes, travel, use electricity, and the like. They do not realize that alternate fuels exist, and are growing in capacity and shrinking in price, so that we will still be able to live more or less as we do now with a much smaller carbon footprint.
3. They are (or are duped by) fossil fuel companies or similar interests, and wish to stop the transition to fossil fuel power mainly out of greed and/or selfishness.
Generally speaking, it is an effort to blunt efforts by others that are perceived as a personal threat, sometimes manifested in a vocal and aggressive way that indicates an unusual level of stress brought about by an underlying fear. If that becomes evident or is pointed out-as often occurs here in this category of Y/A (although most usually in an indirect manner)-the response is usually defensive, because many people are not aware of the level of stress they are under or the reasons for it, and are quite often in denial (ooh, there's that WORD again) about stress or the underlying symptom.
When it comes to matters of science-or anything else that is not readily understood by the person who feels threatened-the goal becomes to stop the threat by whatever means necessary, up to the moral limits of the person who is fearful. Social strictures (ethics) over the centuries have changed, of course, but the fight against AGW today has become the modern day equivalent of a witch hunt, so often referred to by those who feel they are being unfairly assaulted that it has become a cliche.
In this particular instance, it is a double-edged sword; people who are afraid that their lifestyles are going to change are trying to prevent that, but on the other hand, if they are wrong they also know that the costs could be even higher in the future, which increases the level of stress from which they are suffering. Therefore, they evaluate the risks on a personal level and increase the volume and aggressiveness to exude a greater air of confidence, thinking that this has a good chance of increasing the probability of their desired outcomes...which is often nothing more than delaying the inevitable, which is that things will change regardless, which is why they feel so impotent and inadequate. Not to get all Freudian on you, which is how that may sound and why there are so many jokes out there about sports cars and small...never mind, I'm starting to wander.
To find out reality not what is considered junk science right now. Sorry, but when your models exclude all other warm and cool periods for the last 14,000 years then there is a huge problem especially since there is a lot of written history about the Medieval Warming period and the period known as the Little Ice Age.
Global Warmers are trying to hijack the energy system. They want to tax energy consumers to fund alternative energy and a new commodity casino that will make them wealthy. They scream for reduced consumption (hypocritically). They say that overpopulation is the problem (but their solution is draconian). Their "experts" are arrogant and have no significant science to back them up other than normal variation and a slight human factor of around 0.1 degree C. Their theories are unraveling as the years proceed, but the best explanations they can come up with is "pause" and "missing heat". They stonewall legitimate requests for data, then "lose" it. They alter historical records and fiddle publications to meet environmentalist agenda.
The outcomes that skeptics are trying to achieve? Truthful use of public research dollars. Maintain a free-market economy. Refrain from extravagant expenditures for no real effect (trying to eliminate emissions or "sequester" carbon dioxide). Provide energy at its lowest price, free of government subsidy. Preserve historical records. Case in point: Argo floats were deployed to monitor ocean temperature, salinity, pH, etc. There are now over 3,500 floats deployed across the oceans of the world. That system, the love-child of Global Warming, proved that the oceans are cooling, that there is no "missing heat", so they impugned the results.
They denied the global effect of the medieval warming period and the warming period of the early 20th century to make their graph look more hockey-stickish. They denied the legitimate works of scientists that disagree. Wait a minute. You have given "AGW deniers" a whole new meaning!
For me.
Truth. Honesty and transparency. Provide ALL data not just "adjusted" data.
Freedom. I do not wnat and shall rebell against efforts to restrain me. If you can find proof of the theory of AGW AND demonstrate that said actions will have a meaningful and positive impact, then depending on what you are aksing me to give up I may or may not agree. that is the very premise of FREEDOM. That we have and maintain the FREEDOM to choose.
My taxes went up last year and due to teh economy my pay did not. govt is lareaday taking quite a lot from me and giving it to people who don't won't or can't work. I see many of these people giving their children things I can not give my children because we try to be frugal with our money, make wise decisions and not run up our personnel debt. I get frustrated and angry when I see people rewarded for bad behavior. I pay more for my children to particiapte in sprots because other children whose families get free or discounted housing, food, medical care education etc do not have the money to pay. In some levels I agree, but I am NOT able to take my kids on vacations. We struggle to pay medical and dental bills. We sacrifice to pay for sports. We barely make ends meet on a month to month basis in our little 1,000 gsf ranch house in a moderate blue collar neighborhood with semi-good schools. I see too many people in AGW who constantly say I need to give more and live with less. This does anger me. Especially since I am scientifically educated, understand the math and the science. I have not seen conclusive evidence and have seen what I consider to be a significant amount of contracry evidence.
I could go on and on and on.
How about reverseing the quesiton. What do AGW beleivers hope to achieve? Do you have any concept of human limitiations gievn our current state of technology?
FYI some of the work I do is on the "bleeding edge" of technology so yes I understand its limitations.
I don't know about the 'Deniers' but Skeptics are very much concerned about Truth in science. Those who subscribe to Man-did-it, catastrophic global warming (Alarmists) need to assure credibility of the data supporting their claims and ferret out the handful of so-called 'scientists' who have disgraced their professions by manipulating/falsifying data.
EU carbon price slumps by 40%, proves a carbon tax is a disaster.
We're trying to achieve truth, honesty and common sense.
It's about right versus wrong, the fact is that the world is run by evil people with no empathy for humanity, to support them is to support evil.
What are you trying to achieve by changing the social and economic state of the world on the back of a lie based on no credible science or evidence.
You and your fellow lefties have your goals and those who oppose statists have other goals. It is obvious to me what alarmists are trying to achieve and it has been tried before in numerous places always with similar failed results but because alarmists think they are more knowledgeable than they are, they inevitably overestimate their ability to attain their goals. You can tell who alarmists really are. They make snide remarks about oil companies or the Koch brothers, Bush or other wild leftist fantasy. They sometimes try to make people think they have an understanding of the science but don't have an understanding of what they don't understand. Typical of leftists, they inevitably believe they are smarter than others and possess a knowledge and morality above others. What I would like to achieve is exposing lies and exaggerations because I love science and attempt to protect freedoms that ignoramuses haven't learned to respect and cherish.
Depends what level you are talking about at the top you have energy groups who are funding the denial their interest is to protect profits for as long as possible, and damn the consequences.
At the level of in the street denier, you have a range of reasons from simple denial of the facts to more entrenched hatred of communists, greens, the left, politician and even scientists & science, the people inventing the theories deniers use have actually made up a range of theories to try and attract each of these fringe groups, add to that the usually collection of internet trolls who don't care about the subject either way but just like to cause trouble and you have the mix that makes up denial.
Look at the points deniers try to use some claim it Al Gore others claim it's all communists, some claims it's greens, others claim more obscure nonsense like the club of Rome or the return of the planet Nibiri, nobody denies there are a lot of odd people on the internet, venting on many subjects and denier theories have been solidly pitched at many of these groups, oddly those that blame communists seem to ignore those that blame Gore or those that blame scientists etc etc, the trolls of course swing from one theory to the next without a care.
Deniers in general will not even acknowledge this massive hole in their case, each think they are making some stand in whatever fiction fight they have invented, when in fact what they are doing is delaying action on a real problem that will in the long run affect us all, including them.
Take kano: he constantly quotes complete rubbish and is completely unable to back it up with any thing real, yes people should be able to have their own opinion, but when that opinion is based on complete mush, they should be able to admit it rather than make up fairy stories, as many deniers seem to do.
He talks of evidence but if you ask him for some the response is
"it is not up to deniers to prove it wrong, it is up to science to prove it undeniably right, and that has not been done."
An almost word for word excuse many deniers here have tried to use when they could supply nothing to back their claims.
http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind...
Jim's answer is as always funny,
"wild leftist fantasy" and what is that fantasy, that oil companies are funding denier information sources, that is hardly a fantasy, given oil companies have publicly admitted that they do, why they would is hardly much of stretch either and is in line with the practices of many large companies before them like tobacco, mining and chemical companies, oil have even employed some of the same experts.
If you want to talk about fantasies "Scientists are doing this for the money or funding or power" this is neither something scientists have any history of doing or wanting and deniers have not a shred of proof, there's a fine example of fantasy, but should we expect anything better from someone who pretends he is a geologist and quite clear isn't.
What outcomes are deniers trying to achieve by being vocal in opposition to the idea of AGW.
I'm not asking whether people have the right to an opinion, of course they do.
Apart from what Angie says which is very true.
The enormous waste of money which could've gone to improving infrastructure or developing safe reliable nuclear electricity.
the use of climate change for political means.
The wholesale indoctrination and propaganda issues, and contrary to what you say most AGW supporters do not believe we have a right to an opinion.
There are a number of reasons for anti-science denial of AGW. These are probably the most significant:
1. First and foremost, it is important to realize that denial has little to do with scientific skepticism. Most deniers are ready to espouse a laughably inconsistent grab-bag of anti-science myths: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument... AGW deniers are anything BUT "skeptics."
2. The denial movement developed only AFTER many decades of massive scientific research established the scientific consensus being denied.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timel...
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...
http://www.newsweek.com/2007/08/13/the-t...
3. The fossil fuel companies which funded development and propagation of the anti-science myths denying climate science have TRILLIONS of dollars of future fossil fuel revenues at risk should there be any really substantial curtailment of the carbon emissions which are the main cause of long term human-caused global climate weirding.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-mckib...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_o...
4. Climate change is complex, interdisciplinary and in many respects counter-intuitive. Some politicians, for example most of the U.S. Republican Party since about 2004 -who in a number of important cases are also large recipients of campaign funds provided by fossil fuel industry donors- have found it convenient to pander to uninformed voters who might prefer to regard climate science as a hoax rather than have to stress their non-diligent brains actually learning something about it.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...
Note: THIS is the solid consensus of top scientists, which the deniers deny:
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
... ... ... ...
Basically their objective is the same as for those who :
- deny evolution
- deny HIV causes AIDS
- deny vaccination is a health benefit
Wiki has a very good article on Denialism : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism "Denialism is choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid an uncomfortable truth"
The deniers are the alarmists who are now denying global cooling.
Its been a political lie from the get-go. Flawed thinking, flawed models, false premises. Its all about growing government, raising taxes and controlling people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...
They're opposed to public policies that might be implemented based on bogus claims about reality.
truth
They dont want people to realize that we are destroying the world with mining, drilling, fracking, GMOs, chemical manufacturing, and water fluoridization.
Who can tell what goes on in the minds of madmen
They want people to bow down to their three gods; oil, coal and SUVs.
Jeff Engg
Google all the weather stations.
