Fear of change.
Genuine misunderstanding
Fear of government (a common refrain is that "alarmists" are trying to turn the world into a totalitarian state)
A tendency to blindly listen to people on their "side" rather than thinking critically about the issue themselves
Concern (legitimate or exaggerated) about the costs of those changes
Probably other things I'm not thinking of.
My reaction to Climate Change is coloured by many of the things you mention in your question:
? Preserve Rainforests. That sounds good but whe the enviros decide that corn ethanol is good for the planet then people who have rainforest and would like to swap it for cash realize that if the cut down the forest they can plant lots of corn and claim the subsidies. So Green policies do not always work as expected.
? Sustainability. The earth will expire one day so it is not sustainable. Should we be moving somewhere else soon? Nothing is 100% sustainable. This is just a buzzword to help impose an ideology.
? Green Jobs. Have you seen any? Real ones, I mean, not just people analyzing how many green jobs there are. The experience in Spain, who tried very hard to go down the green route, was that a green job cost two elsewhere.
? Livable Cities. This is full of contradiction. If people had a truly green lifestyle they would not live in a city. Cities are not green, the surrounding countryside is. Also, it is surplus wealth that has cleaned up the cities.
? Clean Water and Air. See Cities.
? Healthy Children. Again, lack of poverty rather than anything Green has had the most impact here. There are still children living in smoke-filled mud huts. Would the $billion a day spent on climate change be better used by giving some of it to them?
? Large Companies. Enviros hate large companies. Large companies make the scale of wealth generation required for the last three points above possible. Very often their founders leave foundations that make enormous donations to environmental movements. For instance, ever heard of Hewlett Packard? 300,000 employees: http://www.hewlett.org/
Any moment now the thumbs-downers will be congregating. Instead, why not tell me why I am wrong. If your agument is convincing I will promise to believe it. I can't say fairer than that.
No it doesn't. All those ideas are independent of AGW and should be able to stand on their own. You don't need a crisis to implement good ideas.
I have a great idea but can't convince anyone to help me get my ideas off the ground, do I A bolster my plan with facts and figures or B get the government to take money from others to give to me then file bankruptcy after getting the money. Of course monetary gain was the last thought those who faied had in mind, it was all to save us from global warming.
If you have a good idea it wil stand on its own when you have to convince the government to force people to think your way and pay for your ideas then you need to rethink your idea.
Madd Maxx
1. 2014 is not over. 12 years ends at the end of 2013
2. Temperatures have been level while the solar activity has been dropping like a rock. Does this mean that the Sun has no effect on weather or climate? Or does it mean that the effects of the Sun and carbon dioxide have been cancelling each other out?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp...
Well China and India make up more than one-third of carbon emissions, more than Europe and USA combined. So how you are going to combat global warming while those countries are not passing carbon taxes, is beyond me. It shows that the issue is not global warming, but a desire by people to 'create a better world', pass an environmental religious agenda no matter the costs.
Yes.
I would like to add that one would think that the carbon tax[1] cobined with the reduction in tax on labor [2] as it was done in Australia would have been welcomed by those who complain endlessly about taxation, big government and international corporations. It is a perfectly legal opertunity for them to reduce taxation by reducing the amount of energy they use that comes from fossil fuels through reducing their energy dependency and even going "off grid".
Once you realize that is not tax or big government they are worried about, it all makes sense. More then a couple of the regular deniers here are young earth creationist and they will deny other sciences (evolution, radiometric dating, etc) as well as AGW. To them it is a holy war between their religion and science and anything is acceptable, including breaking their ten commandments, which ironically would mean they would go to hell, if they actually believed hell existed.
It's none of that --- it's simply that the empirical evidence clearly proves there is NO man-made Global Warming and we are wasting hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars on this Alarmist SCAM.
It's been cooling for at least 12 years.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
Top climate scientists say there is no man-made Global Warming.
The Great Global Warming Swindle
Is the main issue the fact that most people don't understand the science of global warming and greenhouse gas emissions?
Or do you think most people simply don't like to confront the severity of the situation?
