What is the real issue behind Climate Change denial, particularly in America?
I believe the real motivation for climate change denial is money. No amount of scientific proof will change their minds because they have no interest in the science. Some who deny climate change are benefitting financially from industries that add to climate change, so they want to keep deceiving the public and deny the consensus of around 97% of the scientific community about climate change. Climate changes deniers do not care about the destruction of the planet and the potential loss of life through increased extreme weather patterns. Their only interest is lining their pockets with money
Enjoy: You nailed it. Money is the reason for most of what happens, not only in this country, but around the world. I have written on this topic as well. I'd love to see you expand your answer to your own question into a hub on this subject with recent information. Good luck!
I agree with you denial of it is related to money with some of industry and some of politics. But, not all. I think a problem with climate change being denied is it confusing. For instance global warming is not climate change, yet is used by some synonymously. And, some think climate change is weather. Those are three distinct terms, although they do relate.
The problem even if you believe in climate change the chances the are better that governments will make it worse. As it is a global issue there is no way that the world is going to act together, and even if they did what would that action be?
In California, the climate change believing government just wants to tax anyone and everyone. And the idea of Carbon Tax is ridiculous.
One of the biggest pollutions are caused by urban roadways being gridlocked. Millions of vehicles not moving or moving beyond a creep generate a lot of carbon. But has the government done anything to reduce that congestion? NO.
Most of the scientific community believes Einstein, and the Big Bang Theory, but it is just a Theory. A theory that has replaced other scientific belief theories over the last thousand years.
Remember, event the church and their scientific scholars believed that the Sun rotated around the Earth. And those that later believed the Earth rotated around the Sun thought the path was a circle.
So consensus is not fact.
We have been at war around the world for the past several hundred years, and look at how much all of that fuel, bombs, and diseases that have messed with our environment.
Remember the oil fires in Kuwait, that burned for a year.
The object is not to let the environment kill progress but to figure out how to create progress within the environmental envelope.
For example, instead of banning coal, create a method for clean burning of it. Over the years, companies have found how to burn garbage cleanly and we certainly have a lot of garbage. Also, some chicken plants have been able to make fuel and energy from the chicken waste products.
As I mentioned before traffic gridlock is bad, and getting worse because the population keeps growing. And in this age of computers, traffic timing could help ease vehicle loitering while the traffic lights stay red unnecessarily.
Another problem with traffic congestion, is that it is ironic but when roadways create more lanes, it also creates congestion until the construction is finished. The problem is that it takes years to complete. If the project was done using multiple companies each working on a small portion of the total number of miles to be added, it would reduce the time for congestion. Unfortunately, road construction is like a retirement plan, rather than a traffic improvement.
Take LAX and see how much traffic congestion there is, especially during the holiday season. see JFK solution
So, your theory isn't that because everyone won't act together, we should just steam ahead and keep wiping the planet out? Why should we stop harming the environment when someone else will still harm it? Rather selfish and ignorant approach
Let's look at the history of failed predictions by environmentalists.
Global cooling will put us in an ice age, everyone starving to death by the 1980s.
Acid rain will melt all the forests.
The world is warming, no more snow by 2010.
We're all going to starve from overpopulation.
Now we'll look at the faith put in computer models, versus real world data that various "climate" groups have actually altered to suit the models. They are using what they want to be true as gospel and altering real world data to suit the models (that no matter what data you use will show cooling in the past and heating into the future.
Another issue is the competing models that show ever more apocalyptic results. You'd expect more accuracy, not less accuracy compared to real world data and more hysterics "OMG, OMG, all life on earth will go extinct if you don't stop it NOW".
Why the ever more extreme projections and predictions? Politics.
Science can be political like the Soviet Union's scientists saying anyone who didn't see the Communist state as perfect had sluggish schizophrenia and genetic science was tossed out for Lysenkoism.
Climate science today is "the world will end within 20 years unless you submit to this totalitarian regime of poverty, population control, limited travel, rationing everything and you can't talk about it because we're so holy".
For the planet works so much better than "for the children", because it lets you impose liberal totalitarian demands on the whole world and those who don't have or care about children.
So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying, because climate science has known something is wrong with things, but has struggled in the past to get accurate data, we shouldn't believe anything they say now? Rather dangerous approach
If they can explain it, they can't fix it. The same is true for cancer. If they don't understand something they usually make it worse.
by PeterStip3 years ago
Is climate change denial a crime?there is no reason to denial climate change. Whatever the cause may be the climate of the earth is changing rapidly. There will be more draughts and floods. We and governments have to...
by PeterStip3 years ago
The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate warming up..Why still argue ?There is a 99% Probability that Manmade Emissions Have Caused Climate ChangeWhy do we still debate if there is a climate...
by Sychophantastic3 years ago
These are results of a public policy poll:Q1 Do you believe global warming is a hoax, ornot?Do ................................................................... 37%Do not...
by Arthur Russ4 months ago
Why Are so Many Americans in Denial of Human’s Contribution to Climate Change, and the Harm its Doing to the Planet?The evidence is so clear, just to name a few:-• The correlation between the burning of...
by mbuggieh3 years ago
In May of 1950 President Harry Truman signed a bill---passed by Congress, that created the National Science Foundation. In signing the bill, Truman noted:"Throughout our history, scientists and scientific knowledge...
by bradmasterOCcal8 months ago
Why isn't finding the cure for CANCER more important for the world than Climate Change?If the whole world agreed on finding a cure for Cancer, would that be a better avenue for the world to take than what they have now...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.