Mostly because the alarmists are easily fooled and the peole in charge of the environmental groups have no understanding of human psychology. Fear is a GREAT motivation in the short term. In the long term fear is a horrible motivator.
The alarmists seem convinced that lying to the public about a climate apocalypse will help motivate people The warmers who are more honest, do not engage in this activity, but do not discourage it either. So the end result is that the alarmists hide behind uncertain science and when alarmists make stupid predictions, the warmers look like fools.
This is why so many people entierly doubt global warming. The pittance spent by the Koch Brothers or whoever, is not enough to even make a difference. People, however, are sick of being lied to with erroneous dire predictions.
Man is causing some warming and we should take some intelligent actions towards renewable resources, but with all of the lying from the alarmists, its hard to even convince people of this.
Linlyons,
Libertarians say the same things, so I will address them.
Take a peak at how much of the gasoline cost are taxes, then take a look at how well the US competed when we had fewer regulations, then take a gander of the predicted losses in jobs from a minimum wage hike. With the exception of the amount the gas prices will increase, everything you listed is true. Even libs know that minimum wage increases cost jobs, the question is if the benefit of higher pay is worth the loss of jobs (I personally think it is, being a moderate libertarian).
Of course, loss of jobs and increases in prices is the comparator you use to the BS crap that your side spews of an uninhabitable planet.
Lucy, you got some splainin to do.
Liberals need to find something besides their ideology to push their failed ideology. In the early 1900s when Woodrow Wilson was president, progressives revealed their ugly side and Americans hated them so they changed names. They have recently changed their name from the "l" word (liberal) because it too often made people think of those such as Jimmy Carter, Nancy Pelosi, and other wackos so they changed it back to Progressives confident that their constituency was too ignorant or too leftist to care.
Because it's an effective sales tactic like appealing to one's vanity or sense of morality or greed, etc.
However, continuously appealing to fear as a pressure tactic (for whatever reason) is becoming less effective due to an increase in education, knowledge and general awareness along with overuse.
I think the political spin deniers try to put on this is exemplified by jims answer, a steaming load of fiction, Jimmy Carter seems a recurring target, odd as most remember him as a quite good President who came to office in bad times. But deniers do seem to have very limited memories as has been seen recently with blaming Obama for the GFC, which was clearly caused by the actions of the two term president before him.
"instead of providing logical evidences that can support what they are trying to convey stronger? Is it because there is not much evidence?"
Interesting, as vast amounts of evidence have been and continue to be provided, it is deniers who have invented a vast array of excuses to try and explain that evidence away.
For all the noise deniers have made about the honesty of scientists with things like climategate, they have to date produced no real evidence that counters the data in anyway. Which is why in the last few years the attacks have become far more directed, desperate and personal, as seen by the attacks on Mann & Hansen. Deniers have repeatedly tried to ignore global data for a whole year, while trying to play up a snow storm that lasted a few days to a few weeks, in just one 'quite small' region of the world.
They did this again in 2013, which in reality was the 4th warmest year in the modern record.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201...
Deniers try quite hard to pretend this is coming from "environmental groups" but it isn't, it is coming from science groups, the best science groups from around the world regardless of that particular countries ruling party politics, and actually outside the U.S. on a political front there is little real denial of climate change from either side of politics, it is primarily a U.S. Republican thing.
The data shows the Arctic continuing to decline
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Deniers claim we have stopped warming (some even try to claim we are cooling) attaching various number to that between 17 & 12 years ago, yet 2010 is the warmest year in the modern record, which is just 4 years ago.
Yet look at the actual data and it is pretty plain there is no slowing dating back to the 1990's
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators#g...
The thick red line is the 5 year average and it rose through the 90's and well into the 2000's, making an utter joke of no warming for 17 years. Temps since 2005 have been some of the highest we have ever recorded and even the cooler years 2008 & 2011 are far warmer than record warm years like 1995, which at the time was the warmest year in the modern record.
So above is real data (with links) which is of course why deniers would rater rant about politics and the left of politics, because they have nothing to counter this data with, so they invent conspiracy theories (by the hundreds) but has that had even the slightest effects of Arctic sea ice loss, no. Has it changed the the rate of sea level rise, no
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators#s...
To me the best example of the train wreak denial has become is the way they lurched from trying to claim scientific consensus means nothing to trying to invent their own with the mess of the OISM petition, it soon became clear that many of the names of this petition where fake, or not scientists at all, yet for years denier continued to try and use it to prop up their absurd claims, I have even seen deniers try to recycle (who said they couldn't be green) points used against the OISM petition against lists of real scientists used in things like the IPCC reports, except, in the IPCC reports they use full names and affiliations so you can find each person (if you want to) something you have never been able to do with the OISM petition.
Then we have raisin cane and his usual line of BS
"Take a peak at how much of the gasoline cost are taxes' not sure what a mountain top has to do with gasoline prices, but if you do take a 'peek' at tax it is used to provide service to the people, your military is partly funded by those taxes and for all this bleating about Libertarians, the U.S. government has become one of the most out sourced in the western world with many things shifted to the private sector, has this made the medical or postal services better, not at all. You have a medical service that is beyond the financial reach of many of your citizens unless they have medical insurance and you are about the only western country that has not put in place some sort of safety net for the poor.
Peg makes a good point. Liberals respond based on emotion, scare them enough and they'll ban the use of water.
Quotes by H.L. Mencken, famous columnist: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed ― and hence clamorous to be led to safety ― by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." And, "The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it."
Interesting.
If the government does impost a carbon tax, the price of gasoline will double.
Obama and the EPA want to drive jobs out of the country.
Raising the minimum wage will kill jobs.
Maybe both sides use it.
However, I see it more on the conservative side than the liberal side.
Maybe it's done because it's more likely to get more results.
On the other hand, considering the wording of your question, I presume that you don't see it all that much in conservative messaging.
If there were nothing to fear, why would we do anything about it?
..Especially on global warming ads or any environmental works?
