Common ground on climate change measures

[Observer]

This is a science question: Why are climate change skeptics/deniers opposed to measures that are intended to reduce causes of climate change, given that such measures reduce pollution?

Even if we assume that climate change and that human activity causes climate change are liberal myths, don't we already have good enough reasons to curb carbon emissions and others pollutants? Don't we all agree that we should try to keep the environment clean (i.e. the air we breathe, the food and water we consume)?

 

[Narapoia]

This is a science question: Why are climate change skeptics/deniers opposed to measures that are intended to reduce causes of climate change, given that such measures reduce pollution?

Even if we assume that climate change and that human activity causes climate change are liberal myths, don't we already have good enough reasons to curb carbon emissions and others pollutants? Don't we all agree that we should try to keep the environment clean (i.e. the air we breathe, the food and water we consume)?

My experience is that people who are climate change sceptics coincidentally adhere to economic and political ideologies that value corporate profits in an unregulated free market more highly than human health. It's a generalisation but it is true for all the sceptics I have met personally and the majority on discussion boards as well.

 

[fromderinside]

Why?

The car in my garage is mine, damnit!

 

[Petrel]

That's not a science question; it's a political one.
We choose our political positions according to our world-view.
Liberal/socialist/fellow travellers have an idea of democracy that makes the government and the voters - society - responsible for the kind of world they live in.
Conservative/right/wing-nuts have a hierarchical mentality that follows leaders. Generals, CEO's, televangelists - whoever yells orders very loudly. (I hear some of them are making a mascot of the international thug, Putin, lately.)

 

[rjh01]

Because climate change deniers fall into one of these categories
1. Ignorant. They do not know enough to have a valid opinion on the subject
2. Vested interests. They are companies who would lose a lot if measures to reduce carbon emissions were implemented. Or they are in the pay of these companies.

 

[Underseer]

This is a science question: Why are climate change skeptics/deniers opposed to measures that are intended to reduce causes of climate change, given that such measures reduce pollution?

Even if we assume that climate change and that human activity causes climate change are liberal myths, don't we already have good enough reasons to curb carbon emissions and others pollutants? Don't we all agree that we should try to keep the environment clean (i.e. the air we breathe, the food and water we consume)?

Because they've been brainwashed by right wing media. It's no different from evangelical denial of biology.

 

[barbos]

I am a catastrophic climate change skeptic, In my judgment evidence is way too flimsy for a level of certainty they display.
Also it is clear to me that climate science is politicized beyond any reasonable level and it really hurts trust in their conclusions.
Basically these "scientists" are fiscally interested in catastrophic conclusions.
Climategate really changed my attitude toward climate scientists.

But I am all for for killing CO2 based economy. Simply because what we know for sure already is enough to conclude that we are changing climate and we are better not to mess with it. And in my view going off CO2 is not as bad for economy as coal&oil lobby says. In fact it's probably good for economy in the long run.