Why are people so profoundly unable to have nuanced opinions on climate change?
It seems to me that climate change is a subject on which the debate is extremely poor.
Either you are a climate change denier (and therefore accused by others of being anti-intellectual) or you are an extreme environmentalist that blindly supports anything uttered by the self-appointed environmentalist leaders (and therefore accused by others of being conceited).
I'm particularly bothered by the latter because it is easier to ridicule climate change deniers than it is to ridicule the conceit, pettiness and profound ignorance of the environmentalists.
How can you debate about it? There are many research that prove it and there are people who think it's fake. That's all. The same goes for people who think there are aliens under their bed who want to abduct them. You either believe it or not
Asher Flores
There are no valid arguments against climate change only retards deny it.
Daniel Roberts
How would an alien abduct you from under your bed?
At worst they'd abduct you to under your bed with them, at which pont you can just leave and go back on top
Jackson Thompson
Maybe they can increase and decrease their size so they have a small base there.
Lucas Harris
Oh, that makes sense.
Owen Williams
then how com there is never snow on christmas anymore ?
when i was a kid every winter there was snow now nothing
Anthony Reyes
Literally just this week finished writing a paper suggesting that developed countries should leave climate change alone for now, for the sake of relative gains. Nuanced enough for you?
Jack Reyes
It's the same for me m8. I don't deny it. The last good Christmas with snow and shit we had in 2006.
Camden Robinson
Maybe denialism would disappear if we managed to eradicate the stupid and counter-productive belief that a scientific "is" implies any sort of political "ought".
When radical left-wing policy is (quite wrongly) treated as the inevitable response to objective scientific fact, rather than as just one of many potentially viable policy options, there is a serious problem. In that political climate, accepting the science means losing the debate. It's entirely unsurprising that people who oppose the left should attack the science (even if they know that the science is right) - this is the only option left to them.
Angel Ross
>completely contradictory research results >highly political topic full of butthurt oppositions left and right >entire businesses founded to work towards climate protection or what they think accounts to it
There's already too much money in the game. We'll eventually find out if it's real but I don't believe that car-free-sundays will change anything.
Jeremiah Peterson
Because if one does a root cause analysis they would find the sheer number of human beings is the reason and there is really no reasonable way to deal with that. Earth and humanity is doomed unless we get were we are headed faster, which means compromising our climate for the sake of technological and social progress
Gabriel Gray
Laws of physics say no sorry
Leo Cook
I think it's more about lobbying. No company want to buy more equipment or decrease manufacturing rate just to lower pollution. They loses will be too big so it's better to buy someone politicians rn then suffer in the future. There is a hidden tunnel under the bed that leads to their base then
Cameron Sanders
Another way to look at it is how one deals with grief, grief of losing our only home. People are just at different stages of it.
It'в fuckin real. Just 10 years ago there was like 18-20 degrees on this time of a year, and now it's about 25-28. Only those who deny it are any fossil fuel related companies and businesses and a whole bunch of their faithful cucks.
Is proven that Co2 keeps sun rays and radiation, you can see the same effect on Venus and the consequences of having a thic atmosphere.
Some people say that global warming is a natural process, and that there is nothing we can do to stop it, but is clear that all that Co2 we are throwing at the atmosphere must have some effect, and if that's true we are only boosting the effect
Ryder Johnson
>All of northern canada open up to settlement and colonization >We pretty much win in any scenario and will have more habitable land
nah I don't give a fuck, I hope it happens because we'd be comfy aslong as we close the borders.
Places that are going to get most fucked are the mediterreans/middle east and other naturally dry places.
Kevin Robinson
That's one example, of course. Specific sectors oppose policy that would damage their business - who's surprised? But there are other reasons to oppose what is framed as "the" response to climate change (and, for that matter, there are reasons to support it other than "the science").
Adrian Clark
There's a tremendous amount of debate as to how catastrophic the effects are, on what timescale they will occur, and whether we can do anything about it without bankrupting the developed world. I don't buy the idea that throwing trillions of dollars at politicians and asking them to fix it will solve the problem and I don't buy the idea that we need to throw ourselves into a depression to substantially reduce our carbon emissions just to save some polar bears
Angel Stewart
the problem is climate change do-gooders labeling anyone who disagrees with them as morons who deny science without ever considering the opposing arguments or refuting them everyone agrees ice ages are real and climate change is real, the recent theories are a little peculiar though since there are few primary sources of historical temperatures and they all come from few places like Antarctica or other permanent ice areas, the scientists gathering and reporting on this data also want their claims to be as big news as possible so they can stay funded so its healthy to have a little skepticism until they can actually prove co2 levels are going to do more damage than natural change we are expected to be in a period of significant warming due to the current ice age ending, this happens with or without co2 levels rising and the co2 being release into the atmosphere is just co2 that was previously captured out of the atmosphere, the co2 concentration has been increasing at a rate not consistent with temperature changes so I have not been convinced I think the most likely situation is the rich saw a new area to invest that could make them richer (renewable energy) so they shilled the fuck out of media with panic reports and bent the few primary sources of data to their liking either way it doesn't matter in the end, earth heats and cools and has done so for millions of years, it would be far more dangerous to try and stop that process when we don't understand it than leave things be
Brandon Allen
That image is very telling, what's the source?
Christopher Perry
Found it: Milankovitch Cycles
Cooper Lopez
Moreover I don't buy that we can't just bully the third-worlders and force them not to use fossil fuels; the projections for this century are that if left alone they are going to become the main source of emissions.
The UNFCCC in general and Kyoto Protocol in particular were literally about the developed world sacrificing itself in order to make room for undeveloped countries (nothing new from the UN there). No wonder that targets were so modest, and that so many countries either didn't sign on, pulled out, or didn't meet targets.
It's pretty well established that the biggest losers from climate change, if it's left alone, will be the poor. Poor countries, and poor people. But poor countries are disorganised, weakly governed, and generally incapable of enacting or enforcing effective policy. The power to do something about climate change lies with the developed world, but the ones who have the most incentive to do something are the undeveloped countries.
The current arrangement is nuts. It tries to have rich and powerful countries let the poor and weak countries catch up to them. The thinking is, that since climate change is detrimental in some way to almost everyone, everyone should want to act, and that those most capable to act are the ones who will have to act. This is nonsense. Climate change doesn't affect countries uniformly, the distribution of damage favours the rich and powerful, and so current frameworks and agreements don't work because rich and powerful countries shouldn't want to and cannot be compelled to follow them.
The only way to produce an international regime that actually works to address the problem, is to set it up so that rich and powerful countries can act without jeopardising their statuses as rich and powerful. In my view this means putting a whole lot more burden and restriction on undeveloped countries, which, albeit in a roundabout way, is exactly what Western leadership has been complaining about.
See:
Jaxson Morales
Denying the climate change is like thinking the world isn't esferic, it's utterly retarded and that's why there isn't any serious debate about it.
Kevin Cox
It's really cute that you posted your graph because the temperature increases for the last 100 years would have punched through your image.
That aside, you are really naive if you think the rich are investing in renewable energy if that what you think will make them rich. Oil, coal and all the 'dirty' energy sources and give a shit ton more returns without the goverment injecting life support subsidies into them and afford them political power if they are the OPEC countries.
No, the reason why it is so divisive is because it lets you draw the line between us and them. Why do you think nobody joined the US of A when they walked out of the Paris Accord to join Syria and some other 3rd world? The time will come when one side will get the excuse to tighten the screws on the other, even if the world has to go into fever mode to do it.
Christian White
*5 coal slumps have been depisited to your account*
Julian Turner
Why are there no socially right wing people who are silmultaneoisly environmentalist? Isn't the environment important for traditions?
Jacob Jenkins
There are today and there certainly were in the past.
Aaron Ross
Probably something to do with autistic people wanting to oppose everything their """enemy""" supports.
Eli Wood
I don't blame 'denialists' because scientists intentionally politicised the issue and poisoned the well, as much as they try to feign innocence now. Their prescriptions to solve things are all dogshit that amount to polishing the brass on the Titanic, as well. If they were serious about climate change they'd be in favour of building disaster response systems for the inevitable, but they're not. Just all feel-good hippy crap that won't make the slightest difference in the event the worst predictions are true
Luis Edwards
There are many, many right-wing environmentalists. I can't speak for other cunts but our Green party is one of the worst in the world, completely la-la policies and notorious for being filthy on a personal level (littering etc)
Luis Brown
Certain religious groups qualify as this. I know the seventh day Adventists are very socially conservative, but place importance on being "Caretakers" of the earth and having a plant based diet.
Austin Brooks
It just always seems like the conservatives and republicans of the world are always opposed to any pro-environment policies or plans Might be this
Lucas Moore
>Why are people so profoundly unable to have nuanced opinions on anything political? ftfy
Bentley Green
Partisanship has fucked us all. Now I'm forced to choose between having guns or having woods to go shooting in.
